Janine's Blog

Points to Ponder when you think that farming rhino or flooding the market with rhino horn is the answer

2011-10-26T14:05:00.002+02:00

Well, there are two possible scenarios and, in my opinion, legalising trade wouldn't work for either of them. by Susie Watts

1. Rhino horn is being sold in the pharmacies and TCM hospitals of Vietnam and China

See our letter to BusinessDay below The stats don't add up!

2. Rhino horn is being stockpiled by very wealthy people as a hedge against future market collapses

There are many, many millionaires and billionaires in China and Vietnam now. In the west, the advice since the global financial crisis began, has been to buy gold. There is mounting evidence that in the east it's rhino horn (as well as art objects). If this is the case, it's a bottomless pit. When will the investors think they have "enough"?

There is also some evidence that small amounts of rhino horn are being "leaked" out of these stockpiles for specific buyers (typically a middle-aged, very wealthy person with cancer). The idea of this is to keep the prices high. In fact, some experts now believe that the cancer myth was started by these rich syndicate members.

HSI's work in Vietnam and China shows that there's very little available in the pharmacies. So where the hell is it all going? Some enforcement people now think it's being used for international money-laundering prior to being stockpiled.

So I'm leaning towards the second scenario. There just isn't enough in the pharmacies to suggest that it's all being sold now.

However, in order to realise their profits, they will have to sell it eventually, so we need to keep the pressure up on the destination countries to make sure that demand is kept as low as possible. It won't help the poor rhinos that have died, but at least we should try to make sure that these ba----ds get as little return from their investment as possible!

Below article is the article mentioned above by Susie Watts and Mark Jones figures based on research by them. This article was published in BusinessDay in August.

You can’t figure it out

The history of rhino poaching is littered with the corpses of economists who have figured it all out on the back of an envelope (How farming rhino will save them (Letters, August 3).

Published: 2011/08/11 07:30:18 AM

The history of rhino poaching is littered with the corpses of economists who have figured it all out on the back of an envelope (How farming rhino will save them (Letters, August 3). What will it take to make them understand that market forces are not controlled by logic and that the actions of individual players can’t be anticipated just by looking at a column of figures?

The naivety of the author Michael Eustace is staggering, and it’s summed up in this claim: "Importantly, there would be no need for the killing of even one rhino, given a legal trade."

The world is trying to get to grips with the devastating effects of the Convention on International Trade In Endangered Species’ 2008 decision to give the go-ahead for China to share 108 tons of auctioned southern African ivory with Japan. A minimum of 55 tons of illegal ivory have been seized around the world since this decision was made and tens of thousands of elephants poached. In 2009, the Chinese made more than 700 seizures of illegal ivory, the most in a single year by any country. And customs people will tell you how small a percentage of illegal wildlife shipments is actually intercepted.

Why is this happening, when the Chinese ivory market has been "flooded"? And why would a legal trade in rhino horn fail to stop the poaching? Well, if you can’t live without a few figures, here they are: it is projected that the (mainland only) Chinese middle class will hit 600-million in 2015. If only one-third of those people take just one single dose (15g) of rhino horn a year, and assuming a mean white-rhino horn weight of 4kg, we will need 750000 rhino horns a year to satisfy the market. That’s 16 times the estimated global rhino population.

The illegal trade in "medicinal" wildlife products is mostly driven by consumer perceptions that don’t obey the rules of economics, which the current global crisis shows to be a very inexact science anyway. For example, why are wild tigers and bears being poached at an alarming rate, when thousands of them are being held captive and "harvested" for their body parts in east Asia?

Conservationists know why. Economists apparently don’t.

Susie Watts and Mark Jones

Humane Society International

Monitoring ecosystem health through counting butterflies continues Oct 2011 Census

2011-10-18T06:52:00.000+02:00

South Africa’s fourth Butterfly Census Week (BCW4) is taking place from 22-30 October 2011, an exciting activity run by the Lepidopterists’ Society of Africa. This follows on the launch of South Africa’s biannual butterfly censuses in 2010 (run every Autumn and Spring), in an effort to begin a long-term butterfly monitoring programme for monitoring ecosystem health. There are about 800 butterfly species and subspecies in our country, and about 10% of these are threatened with extinction. Thus monitoring our butterflies provides important insights into the conservation of our flying jewels. Similar butterfly censuses have already been running for a number of decades in the UK, US and Canada.

Anyone can participate in the BCWs. There are beginner and expert categories. All butterfly species observed at a specific locality by teams (including school teams) over the week are noted and counted. For more information and to register your teams and locality (registration is free), please visit: www.lepsoc.org.za

Results from the first three censuses have shown that the provinces with highest participation have been KwaZulu-Natal and the Western Cape, and no censuses have yet taken place in the Northern Cape. Members of the public from all provinces, especially the Northern Cape, North West and Free State, are encouraged to please participate and help us gain knowledge on the patterns and trends of butterflies across the entire country. Following BCW3, some patterns that are emerging show that there are seasonal trends in butterfly numbers, with some being more abundant during Spring and others more abundant during Autumn. Also, numbers seen vary between years during the same season. Such patterns, once compared to climatic variables, may shed light on changes in the environment, whether human-induced or as part of climate change. Please visit the following link for more information on previous BCW results: http://sabca.adu.org.za/bcw3_results.php

279 rhinos poached this year so far - Edna Molewa

2011-08-30T06:56:00.000+02:00

Edna Molewa

29 August 2011

Minister sets out what is being done to combat scourge

Statement by Minister Edna Molewa on the ongoing scourage of rhino poaching

29 Aug 2011
The ongoing scourge of rhino poaching in our country is an area of great concern to this government and ordinary South Africans.
South Africa has a proud track record of successful rhino conservation and has the highest number of white rhinos on the continent. At the end of 2007 South Africa had conserved 35% of Africa's black rhino in the wild and 93% of the continent's white rhino.
We would like to urge all our communities to work with our law enforcement agencies and Game Parks Authorities to stop this looting of our national treasures.
Rhino poaching is a crime that is undoubtedly fuelled by a thriving black market trade in rhino horn. Since January this year, a total of 279 rhinos have been poached, with 169 of them in the Kruger National Park.
The intensification of our anti-rhino poaching activities has seen 155 suspects arrested in relation to rhino poaching activities this year. Of these arrests, 65 were for rhino poaching related activities in Kruger National Park. For this I must commend the work of the 300 rangers and SANParks investigators, our security cluster departments among them being Defense, SAPS and State Security, who are at the forefront of fighting and preventing poaching.
Although the National Prosecuting Authority has dedicated prosecutors working on the rhino poaching cases, those who are operators in the field of rhino conservation and South Africans at large, who bear the brunt of this scourge, feel that cases take a long while before being concluded and also that the rate of prosecutions are still too low.
Cooperation with the South African Police Service and the National Prosecuting Authority is however being enhanced and we could soon have a prioritisation of the rhino cases.
Together with our various stakeholders, we have developed a holistic approach to tackle rhino poaching.
The investigations and intelligence gathering of rhino cases is overseen by a National Joints Operation structure (NatJoints) and the National Strategy for the Safety and Security of Rhinoceros and rhino horns in South Africa is being implemented by both the NatJoints and the interim National Wildlife Crime Reaction Unit (NWCRU) across the country. We continue to strengthen our biodiversity enforcement and monitoring capacities to ensure compliance with our biodiversity legislation.
We commend the cooperation between enforcement units such as the SAPS organised crime units, the HAWKS, Department of Defense, Department of Justice, INTERPOL and The National Prosecuting Authority. The work done by South African National Parks in coordinating the NWCRU and finding innovative ways to fight this scourge is commendable.
The anti-poaching ability of the Kruger National Park has been increased by approximately 57 rangers in the last year. We also welcome the return of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) to monitor the 350 kilometres of national border in Kruger National Park and other country borders.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) recently commended our efforts as a country in curbing rhino poaching and the scourge of illegal trade in rhino horn at its sixty-first (61st) meeting of Standing Committee held in Geneva, Switzerland.
The CITES Standing Committee noted that rhino poaching and illegal trade in rhino horns is a phenomenon which is also occurring in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Mozambique, Nepal and Zimbabwe.
South Africa's experience and interventions measures in fighting the illegal trade were well received and other member states affected by the same problem were encouraged to follow suit. CITES further appealed to consumer states to further improve controls and enforcement relating to the illegal trade in rhino horns.
The need for cooperation with Vietnam and Mozambique, among other countries is a priority for us. The Vietnamese delegation led by their Vice Prime Minister visited South Africa recently and we agreed to finalise a Memorandum of Understanding on wildlife trafficking. In September this year, we are expecting a Vietnamese technical delegation to specifically discuss wildlife management.
The relationship with Mozambique has to be strengthened to assist in the anti poaching and other wildlife crime issues. In a recently held bilateral security meeting between Mozambique and South Africa it was suggested in the Committee on Public Security that operations on anti rhino poaching should be elevated to a priority for both countries and that a cross border strategy for the safety of wildlife be developed within the next six months.
I am also considering additional measures that I aim to implement to arrest this scourge of poaching in our country. It is my intention to also engage with the various provincial Environment MECs to look at the possibility of placing a moratorium on the hunting of rhinoceros. This is one of a number of measures I am contemplating to further strengthen interventions to ensure that our rhino populations are conserved.
Before exercising my power in terms of section 57(2) (a) of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (Biodiversity Act) I will consult with the MECs and follow a clear consultation process as prescribed in the Act.
Currently, the provincial conservation authorities issues permits for the sport hunting of rhino and an unfortunate challenge we are facing, in terms of the permitting of rhino hunting, is the abuse of the system by unscrupulous individuals.
Illegal hunting and the abuse of the permit system may be the main threats that could impact on the survival of rhinoceros in the wild in the near future.
To address the abuse of the permit system, the MEC's and I recently approved the amendment of the norms and standards for the marking of rhinoceros horn and hunting of white rhinoceros for trophy hunting purposes.
Among others, these amendments will include the following:

Provincial conservation officials must supervise rhino hunts and while attending these hunts the identity of the hunter must be verified.
The official that attends the hunt must provide the Department of Environmental Affairs with the permit number, the information on the back of the permit and the microchip numbers.
Official must take DNA samples after the hunt.

As promised the three studies that the department is undertake will further inform the process going forward. The dehorning possibility impact study has been initiated and will be concluded within the next three months. The Terms of Reference for the two other studies, i.e. the feasibility study to determine the viability of legalising trade in rhino horn in South Africa; and the global competitive market research assessment study, have been advertised and the closing date for proposals is 2 September 2011.
We will continue to work with all our communities, provinces, game parks authorities, counterparts at sub-regional and regional levels and internationally including through CITES structures.

RHINO POACHING STATISTICS
Poaching:

	2008	2009	2010	2011
KNP	36	50	146	169
GP	0	7	15	7
LIM	23	16	52	45
MP	2	6	17	10
NW	7	10	57	12
EC	1	3	4	9
FS	0	2	3	2
KZN	14	28	38	21
WC	0	0	0	4
NC	0	0	1	0
	83	122	333	279

Arrests:

South Africa	2011	2010
KNP (KNP)	65	67
Gauteng (GP)	14	10
Mpumalanga (MP)	45	16
Eastern Cape (EC)	2	7
Limpopo (LP)	12	36
North West (NW)	15	2
Free State (FS)	0	0
KZN (KZN)	2	25
Western Cape (WC)	0	2
Northern Cape (NC)	0	0
Total	155	165

Statement issued by Department of Environmental Affairs, August 29 2011

Bird Rescue and First aid course by Karen Trendler

2011-07-11T12:13:00.000+02:00

http://workingwild-karent.blogspot.com/2011/07/bird-rescue-and-first-aid-course.html?spref=fb

For those who love birds this is well worth doing

To Leagalise or Not to Leagalise rhino horn trade?

2011-05-16T15:28:00.001+02:00

Legalising the trade in horn will stop poaching, proponents say.

Others argue it is irresponsible and will fuel the black market.

by Sheree Bega (Published in the The Saturday Star of South Africa on Saturday 14 May 2011 )
http://www.thestar.co.za/

LUCKY TO LIVE: A rhino is treated on a game farm in Limpopo after being shot 15 times. Recent calls to legalise trade in rhino horns have been criticised as irresponsible.

THE POACHERS left in a hurry. But not before they had pumped 15 bullets into a female rhino roaming the Groblers' game farm, her six- month-old calf at her side.

Miraculously, she survived, her horn intact. Her calf escaped during last Tuesday night's ambush. "Luckily our manager heard the shots and surprised the poachers," says Willie Grobler*, whose father runs the farm near Tzaneen. "She's a miracle. But you see something like that and it's hard not to lose yourself. The calf was at her mother's side. We found 15 bullet wounds. We can't believe there's no spinal damage, and we're monitoring her closely."

It's not the first time poachers have struck here in the past year. "The first time, they shot two females several times. But they survived. We can't believe we've survived three attacks on our rhino and all three are alive." But Grobler worries their luck will run out, and that the poachers, ever more brazen, will return. Like many other rhino owners, he is tired of the carnage and believes there is only one, controversial solution: legalising the trade in rhino horn.

"If the trade gets controlled, the prices will go down and the black market will decline. The current situation we're facing is ridiculous." In recent months, calls to legalise the trade, banned by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) 35 years ago, have become more resounding.

The Department of Environmental Affairs is conducting a feasibility study this year to determine the viability of legalising trade in rhino horn. It is also investigating the impact of dehorning rhino as a possible deterrent.

Department spokesman Albi Modise explains: "The (rhino) summit (in October) raised concerns that the current moratorium resulted in an increase in poaching and that regulated trade could address the need or demand for rhino horn in the global market." But even if South Africa decides to throw its weight behind legal trade, it could still take as long as a decade to put in place the necessary foundations for legal, regulated trade, while convincing Cites and its member countries will be "no mean feat", say conservationists.

Wildlife specialist Karen Trendler is critical of the calls for trade, and sees this motivated "primarily by business interests, the wildlife industry and economists". She says in conservation organisations, wildlife trade specialists

and the animal welfare sector, the feeling is that trade will not stop poaching and may place the country's rhino in even more peril. "Historically legal supply and

trade in high-value wildlife products has not stopped or reduced poaching or the black market," Trendler writes in a recent discussion document presented at an Endangered

Wildlife Trust (EWT) meeting. The illegal wildlife trade will always undercut legal operators because it's cheaper, she explains.

"The risk is that illegal trade and demand will be stimulated and illegal horn laundering facilitated. "Tiger farming and legalised trade has not saved the wild populations. To the contrary, illegal trade increased and threats to tiger conservation are greater than ever before. "Essentially legalising the trade will profit very few - a couple of wealthy rhino owners."

But Pelham Jones, who heads up the Private Rhino Owners Association, disputes this. "Ninety percent of investors in rhino have done it for the purposes of conservation and profit is the very last thing on their minds. This is the community that has invested hundreds of millions of rands in the preservation of rhino, not only in terms of the acquisition of the animals, but also in providing suitable habitats, the necessary veterinary care, and security. "As a result of creating a situation where the animals are worth more alive than dead, that then has to be an alternative solution to simply placing a ban (on the trade in rhino horn)," he says. Roughly 21 000 rhinos remain in South Africa. But for the largely Chinese and Vietnamese consumers of their horn, it is believed to cure everything from fever to cancer.

There are huge ethical questions around a trade in rhino horn, Trendler says. "Promoting rhino horn as a cure for cancer or other conditions is irresponsible and unethical and a threat to the survival of rhino populations." She says the push to establish trade to facilitate farming of rhino horn may also have serious welfare and ethical concerns.

"We don't want to see our rhino farmed in the same way as lions are for canned hunting. I think the lines at the moment are being blurred." Trendler also warns of "rhino- preneurs", cashing in on public sympathy for the plight of rhino. "There are hundreds of new NGOs who've popped up who are all raising funds to save the rhino, but that money in some cases is not going where it should." Trendler believes there are too few rhino to sustain the market.

"There are less than 25 000 rhino in the world and a potential market of 1.5 billion users in China and Vietnam. We have a poor knowledge and understanding of trade dynamics. Indications are that China would be more likely to farm its own product than formally request trade with South Africa."

Nor will the push towards a legalised trade scenario save rhinos now, she says. "The time required to put in the necessary foundations for legal trade in rhino horn could take up to six to 10 years. End-user countries like China and Vietnam have not officially requested supply or a trade in rhino horn. There is no clear commercial commodity, no clear end user and no formal trading partner Cites doesn't want the trade.

"Our focus should be on stopping the poaching crisis now. We should step up our law enforcement, direct our resources towards the phenomenal public prosecutors out there, towards better intelligence and resources for the guys on the ground risking their lives."

The country's management has been tarnished. "South Africa is being scrutinised by Cites for our inability to control rhino poaching, effectively wildlife implement our threatened and protected species legislation and for the questionable and unethical practices associated with the wildlife industry."

These include canned hunting, the breeding of exotic hybrids for hunts, unethical hunting practices, and pseudo trophy hunts, driven largely by the Vietnamese who can

pay as much as R400 000 per hunt.

Trendler says there is concern that some owners don't want to dis- close their horn stockpiles. "We do not fulfil the necessary requirements to ensure safe or legal trade."

But economist Michael Eustace believes the trade can work. "We can supply the Far Eastern market with enough horn to satisfy demand for the medicinal trade from natural

deaths, from the huge stockpiles we've got and from farming rhino."

He says that South Africa could supply the market with horns from 400 rhino from natural deaths alone.

If legal horn is properly marked, there is little chance of laundering. "People sometimes say demand is insatiable, but at current prices, demand is limited by high prices If we can stop the killing and also make billions for parks, and keep more private land invested in wildlife, so much the better." He thinks the Cites ban has failed, merely pushing the trade underground. "There were around 60 000 rhino in 1970 on the continent, a number that should have grown to 600 000 rhino today. "We have only 4 percent of what we should have had."

Eustace believes that the department's study will conclude legal trade is the route to follow, but division remains. "South Africa is in disarray. Half the role players want to rely on law enforcement and changing the Chinese mindset while the other half are saying let's look at the legal trade. But there is more consensus than there was a year ago."

Changing Chinese mindsets is futile. "They've been using rhino horn for centuries. It's exotic, expensive and has a prestige about it."

Conservationist Faan Coetzee, who until recently headed the EWT's rhino security project, says that the only way to crack the poaching epidemic is to target syndicates. "By the time there is legal trade, I'm scared to say, there won't be any rhino left. The only way I could live with trade is if we sell the horn in our legal stockpiles that's now lying in storerooms. But if we do this, we start fuelling a fire that shouldn't be fuelled.

"The bottom line is we sit with a criminal-driven problem, which is not about medicine, it's about syndicates making billions.

"We don't see the police catch or infiltrate these syndicates. We see them catching the poachers on the ground, but not those driving the show. Coetzee says South Africa's law enforcement is in dire straits. "Some provinces have one or two investigators to cover the whole province.

This is why syndicates are always five steps ahead of us." Dr Mike Knight, of the Interna- tional Union for Conservation of Nature's African Rhino Specialist Group, says poaching remains "a huge and growing problem" and the department's study is as an important step to understand the market in greater depth.

"Such a study would thus sup- port the decision-making process around the trade in horn. Irrespective if a government decides to take this route they would still need a two-thirds majority at Cites. This is no mean feat."

But Eustace says with "greater capacity", a legal trade could hap- pen soon. "I don't think Zimbabwe's rhino can wait another six years.

Maybe South Africa, too, could see five rhino being poached a day. It happens very fast. All you need is one more gangster out there employing a few more poachers. It's the best

get-rich-quick game in the country."

* Not his real name

This is a copy of an article which appeared in The Saturday Star 14 May 2011 written by Sheree Bega

For Reliable news in South Africa go to http://www.thestar.co.za/

Cape Nature will now be issuing (blanket) hunting permits to landowners - valid for six months.

2011-05-10T13:00:00.000+02:00

Date: 5/06/2011

Subject: Problem animal control in South Africa - again.

MINISTER BREDELL CONFIRMS: CAPENATURE’S (BLANKET) HUNTING PERMIT IS NOW VALID FOR SIX MONTHS

The Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Anton Bredell has today (19 April 2011) confirmed that Cape Nature will now be issuing (blanket) hunting permits to landowners - valid for six months. The permits allow the following prohibited hunting methods: night hunting and the use of artificial lights.

Reason given: The management of damage-causing animals in the Western Cape, particularly black-backed jackal and caracal, reached a point during 2010 where landowners demanded drastic measures to control and reduce jackal and caracal numbers, reportedly responsible for unusually high stock losses.

(Translation: it is local government election time and someone wants the farmers’ votes.)

I think that the Bredell cull is unlawful for several reasons. First, there is no provision allowing for the granting of blanket permits to exterminate a species in a whole area before any damage or losses have even occurred, for an extended period of six months into the future. There is no provision in the legislation for pre-emptive killings.

Second, there are a host of constitutional rights to be violated when the farmers cross in to the neighbours’ land to kill such animals there. Indeed, granting such an extra-ordinarily intrusive power is bound to lead to armed confrontations between landowners. The law presumes that one intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions. So, if a shoot-out takes place, and someone is killed, the family could lay criminal charges against both Minister Bredell and Cape Nature for culpable homicide, and recover large damages from them by civil action.

Third, granting such excessive powers to landowners to asset strip our environment pre-emptively, would offend our constitutional right to a healthy environment.

In short, the Bredell cull is unlawful, and everyone involved from Bredell himself downwards will be responsible both criminally and in damages when someone gets hurt.

Chris Mercer & Bev Pervan

Campaign Against Canned Hunting (CACH)

Registered non-profit NGO – PBO930030402

“For the Love of Wildlife”

2007 Marchig International Trust Award for service to animal welfare

http://www.cannedlion.org

Counting butterflies for monitoring ecosystem changes

2011-04-17T12:42:00.000+02:00

PRESS RELEASE

Counting butterflies for monitoring ecosystem changes

South Africa’s third Butterfly Census Week (BCW3) is taking place from 23 April to 1 May 2011. This follows on the launch of South Africa’s first two successful censuses last year, in an effort to begin a long-term butterfly monitoring programme. Butterflies are good indicators of ecosystem health and counting them can provide important information which can be related to land use practices and even climate change. With about 800 butterfly taxa in our country, of which about 10% are threatened with extinction, monitoring our butterflies provides important insights into the conservation of our flying jewels.

Anyone can participate in the BCWs. There are beginner and expert categories. All butterfly species observed by teams (including school teams) over the week at any specific locality are noted and counted. For more information and to register your teams and locality (registration is free), please visit: http://sabca.adu.org.za/bcw3.php

The BCWs were part of the Southern African Butterfly Conservation Assessment project (SABCA), a joint project of the Animal Demography Unit (University of Cape Town), the Lepidopterists’ Society of Africa (LepSoc) and the South African National Biodiversity Institute. SABCA ended in March and LepSoc has taken over the running of the BCWs with the aim to continue censusing butterflies around the country biannually. Similar butterfly censuses have already been running for a number of decades in the UK, US and Canada.

Discussion Document DEHORNING RHINO

2011-03-30T11:46:00.007+02:00

DEHORNING RHINO

The Welfare, Ethics and Behavioral Considerations

Karen Trendler

Assessment of the efficacy of dehorning and legal trade in rhino horn

(Diceros bicornis and Ceratotherium simum ) as a deterrent to poaching

Endangered Wildlife Trust \ EWT Workshop The SA Mint 1-3 March 2011

The ongoing crisis in rhino poaching has opened debates on the:

The efficacy of dehorning as a deterrent to poaching

2. The legal trade in rhino horn

Following the DEA National Rhino Summit in November 2010, the South African government decided to look at the feasibility of legalizing the trade in rhino horn.

This discussion document looks at the ethical considerations around the dehorning and proposed legalization of trade in rhino horn.

Introduction

The rhino horn issue is a highly complex and controversial one about which not enough is known or understood. More research and a better understanding of the various components and interrelated nature of the issues are needed.

It is critical that decisions are based on well-researched, credible information aimed at reducing poaching and encouraging in-situ rhino conservation.

Misinformation, media hype, well-intentioned but often misdirected anti-poaching campaigns, media reports, corruption, poor law enforcement, economic factors and commercial ‘drives’ further compound the issues.

Whilst the workshop focused on the Black rhino (Diceros bicornis) and the White rhino (Ceratotherium simum) poaching, rhino horn and wildlife trade are international concerns with links to organized crime and need to be considered within a global context. All five species, the single horned Javan and Indian rhino and the double horned Sumatran, Black and White rhino are threatened by demand for rhino horn. Asian rhino are listed as vulnerable to critically endangered and these populations cannot sustain the current poaching pressure.

Ethics, welfare and behavior

Ethics refers to moral principles of right and wrong, which are guided by societal norms. Ethical decision-making looks at the issue holistically and takes all the factors, implications, and concerned parties into consideration. Simply summarized as ‘Doing the right thing, in the right way, for the right reason’. In order to make ethical decisions we need to be well informed and responsible, and ask the question ‘Does the end justify the means? ’

Behavior refers to what an animal does and is associated with survival, basic maintenance, reproduction, socialization and how the animal interacts with its environment.

Welfare refers to the health and well–being an animal, both physical and mental. Anything that potentially affects behavior can impact on welfare and consequently on the survival of the individual animal and ultimately on the species.

Does dehorning affect behavior ? welfare ? survival ?

Structure and composition of Rhino horn

The horn is a tubular, non-bony structure that rests on the nasal and frontal bone protuberances. The horn is composed of modified compressed hair-like fibers containing the protein, keratin. Computerized tomography CT scans reveal that the horn contains a dense inner core of calcium and melanin (similar to horses hooves or birds beaks). Relative proportions and mineral content vary according to region and diet.

The horn grows continuously from a basal growth point at a growth rate of between 5-12 cm per annum, depending on age, sex and health of the rhino. The horn may break, chip, erode and re-grow throughout the natural life of the rhino.

The difference in composition between the inner core and outer sheath, combined with exposure to ultraviolet light, results in differential wear and the tip being worn to a sharp point.

The Dehorning process

The horn is cut off while the rhino is chemically immobilized (anaesthetized). The removal of the horn is a non-invasive, non-surgical procedure, similar to cutting one’s hair or nails and should not cause the rhino any pain or injury. Once the antagonist is administered, the rhino can be up and back on its feet within a few minutes.

The risks associated with dehorning include those associated with anesthesia, cutting the horn off too close to growth point and, drugging and handling a very large animal and effects on behaviour.

There are always risks associated with anesthesia. Etorphine\M99, the drug used for immobilizing rhino is procedure is a strictly controlled, high schedule potent opioid. Newer drug combinations and experience have reduced the risks. The current calculated mortality risk for free ranging rhino to < 1%. This procedure should only be carried out by a ‘rhino experienced’ wildlife vet and team using the correct protocols and taking the relevant precautions, should perform the dehorning.

A Veterinary protocol/ S.O.P for the dehorning of rhino is currently being compiled by SAVC.

Due to the continual growth of the horn, dehorning may need to be repeated every 18 – 24 months. Repeated exposure to anaesthesia may contribute to short and long-term health problem; and increases the mortality risk to between 1-2 %. Contradictory opinions were expressed at the workshop. A specialist veterinary aneasthetist confirmed that risks increase with frequency of and repeated exposure to anaesthesia.

Drugging and handling of mega-herbivores carries inherent risks that may include injuries, bruising, overheating, cardiac distress, respiratory depression, increased blood pressure, localized pressure myopathies, miscarriages in pregnant females etc.

The horn should be cut off safely above the germinal growth layer. When the horn is removed too close to the skull, bleeding, injury, maggot infestation, infection, caviations and deformed re-growth can occur. Rhinos have extensive sinus cavities and infection in the sinus cavities following dehorning can have serious and fatal consequences.

Dehorning activities have been linked to ‘green hunting’ or ‘green darting’. This involves payment by a third party (a tourist or ‘paying’ volunteer) to be involved in or carry out the process. This may increase risks. It should be noted that the South African Veterinary Council \ SAVC states that green hunting is unethical and no vet may participate in this practice. Department of Environmental Affairs will no longer issue permits for green darting\ hunting.

The relevant authorizations are required for dehorning and a valid permit is required for possession of horn. The horn once removed must be weighed, measured, micro-chipped permissions and permits must be obtained prior to dehorning and once the horn is and registered with the conservation authorities.

The impacts of dehorning on behaviour, welfare and survivability need to be considered in evaluating the efficacy and ethical issues around dehorning.

What do rhinos use their horns for ?

Rhino horns play an important role in rhino life history of the rhino and are used for various functions associated with survival\maintenance, reproduction and social interaction, including:

· Territorial, predator and calf defense

· Dominance and threat displays

· Maintenance behaviors including digging for water, digging soil and mud, foraging, breaking branches, and removing bark.

· Maternal care including breaking branches for calves to eat, moving and guiding calves, and protection

Rhino behavior (territory maintenance and defense, mating, reproduction) involves a combination of factors influenced by size, age, sex, social ranking, and condition and population structure. Vocalizations, olfactory communications, scent marking, horn marking, scraping etc all form part of a range of behaviors thus the impacts of dehorning and horn function need to be evaluated within the complexity of behavior and social dynamics.

Long-term genetic impacts would also need to be considered.

Does horn removal impact on behaviour?

Dehorning does impact on behaviour but the impact is variabl; and the extent to which this affects welfare and survival of the rhino is not fully understood.

Neutral and negative impacts on behaviour have been reported. The differences in response to dehorning can be correlated to variability in vegetation, visibility, predator type and density, food and territory availability, population stability, area, as well as age, sex and social status.

The negative impacts of dehorning are more severe or problematic in compressed and unstable populations; especially in confined and intensive management situations. There are records of dehorned bulls being injured or killed by horned cows and lesser bulls. Extensively managed, free-ranging, stable populations displayed minimal or fewer recorded impacts.

There is insufficient data on the ecological and social impacts of de-horning, and a need for coordinated collection, collation and evaluation of the impacts of dehorning on individual rhino and populations.

Is dehorning effective as a deterrent to poaching?

Whilst dehorning has proved to be a partial deterrent to poaching, it should not be seen as the only measure and must be utilized as part of comprehensive security management. Dehorning should be combined with other anti- poaching measures (increased security, improved intelligence and collaboration, strategic relocations etc). Dehorning is a crisis measure and should be considered on a case-by-case basis and not as a ‘blanket’ measure.

Dehorning acts as a partial deterrent only. Rhino have been poached after dehorning.

A ‘stub’ of horn remains after dehorning which is still harvestable by poachers. Dehorned rhino have been poached and the remaining horn dug out of the skull. The horn re-growth presents an ongoing poaching risk. There are reports of revenge or ‘political’ killings of dehorned rhino. Dehorned rhino are also apparently killed to reduce unnecessary tracking

Dehorning may create a false sense of security and does not remove merely transfers the risk and there have been armed robberies and theft horn.

Another major concern is that dehorning in one area may move the focus of poaching to areas where dehorning is not taking place, putting extensive areas and national /provincial parks at greater risk.

Strategic dehorning or selective dehorning of animals is an option to consider and may reduce the risk to specific animals. Rhinos maintain territories and where territories are located in high-risk areas (adjacent to roads, border fences) strategic dehorning can reduce poaching risk when combined with other anti –poaching measures and may be effective in both intensive and extensive situations.

Strategic relocations whereby rhino are moved from high risk areas to areas of lower risk or improved, or collective security measures.

Dehorning, tourism and sustainability

There have been no detailed studies conducted on the possible impacts of dehorning on tourism. The effect on revenue from tourism and aesthetic considerations need to be factored in.

There have been both positive and negative reactions from tourists to dehorning. Some felt that it was positive and necessary step to prevent poaching, whilst others responded negatively and did not what to see ‘deformed’ rhino.

Concern has been expressed as to the effect of dehorning on the hunting industry. Dehorning may reduce the demand for rhino hunts and this could as a disincentive to rhino owners.

Dehorning is a relatively expensive procedure, requiring vets, helicopters and capture staff.

Private landowners estimate costs at approximately R8000 per rhino.

Rhino ‘farmers’ argue that dehorning of rhino in intensively managed captive situations is less expensive and easier. This needs to be evaluated against the negative impacts on behaviour in compressed populations. There is considerable opposition from conservationists, welfare organizations and the public to seeing rhino farmed intensively for their horns, especially in view of the canned lion and captive predator-breeding situation.

Intensive farming of rhino could further damage South Africa’s reputation and impact on tourism.

The motivation for dehorning as a means to stockpile horn for possible future trade should not be confused with the dehorning as an anti–poaching\conservation measure.

Dr Sam Ferreira of SANParks reports that Kruger Park presently have between 9460 – 12130 rhino. Logistically it will present a significant challenge to catch and dehorn the Kruger rhino that will need to be chemically immobilized from a helicopter base. Rhino horn grows back and these will most likely need to be dehorned again at 1-2 years intervals. Chemical immobilization takes about 1 hour at an estimated of R5000 per hour including helicopter flight time, veterinary and staff costs. That translates to a cost of R47 to R60 million. Calculated costs including vet, helicopter time, staff per dehorning is approximately R5000 and takes about 1 hour per animal. This translates into a cost R 47 - R60 million.

The costs of dehorning and allocation of resources needs to be balanced against effectivity of dehorning as an anti-poaching measure, the impacts on behaviour, welfare and survival of the rhino and torusim as well as practical and logistical management considerations.

In addition to the potential impacts on tourism, the practical, logistical and economic sustainability render dehorning unsuitable for in larger extensive areas and some national and provincial parks. It is currently the policy of EKZWN\Ezemvelo Kwazula Nature Conservation, SANParks and North West Parks Board (Pilanesburg ) not to dehorn rhino and to allocate resources and attention to improved security, monitoring ad other anti-poaching measures. Namibia has decided not to continue dehorning.

Dehorning may be suitable for smaller areas and \ or privately owned rhino and should be at the discretion of landowner

The Value of Rhino horn

The exact global or market place value of rhino horn is unknown. Quoted prices are hugely inflated and not a true reflection of the ‘real’ prices which vary according to position in the trade chain. It is possible that these inflated values have contributed to an increase in poaching and stockpiling; raising unrealistic expectations of potential rhino horn ‘farmers’, poachers, traders and economists. *NPA (National Prosecuting Authority) representative quote local SA price as being R12 000\kg.

Asian rhino horn has a higher market value than that of African White rhino. The horns are smaller and considered more potent. The rarer the species, the higher value. Horn from Black rhino and horn from rhinos in Assam has a premium price.

What is rhino horn used for? And where are the markets?

Rhino horn is utilized primarily in oriental traditional medicine for non-life threatening conditions such as gout, fever, rheumatism; and more recently touted as a cure for cancer. Contrary to popular belief, rhino horn is not commonly prescribed as an aphrodisiac.

The horn is shaved or ground up and placed in boiling water. Traditional medicine practitioners apparently before acquiring the whole horn rather than powdered or cut form. It is believed that horn from a live animal may be more potent than from a dead one (references in this respect were contradictory). The central core of melanin and calcium is reported by some sources to have a higher value than the outer part of the horn. Various sources spoke of the ‘horn pulp’ having higher value and stronger medicinal properties but there is no ‘pulp’ in the horn. (Possibly ‘pulp’ refers to the central core.)

Scientific medical research has shown that rhino horn has NO clinically proven medicinal .

Damage Causing Animals (SA) policy published for comment

2010-12-03T17:58:00.004+02:00

The Damage causing Animals (South Africa) policy has been published for public comment. There are 30 days to comment from the time of publication .....

Please click in the link below read and submit your comments to the government

http://www.environment.gov.za/HotIssues/2010/animalstandard.pdf

thank you for caring.

More news on Canned Lion Hunting 8 Nov 2010

2010-11-10T07:14:00.001+02:00

In June 2009, Judge van Der Merwe, Free State High Court ruled in favour of Dept of Environmental Affairs and upheld the provisions of the TOPS (Threatened or Protected Species Regulations).

The judgement found that the hunting of captive... bred lions totally dependant on humans for their survival was not acceptable; nor did the captive breeding of lion in captivity solely for the purpose of hunting did not contribute to the conservation of the species. It was ruled that captive bred lion could only be hunted if released into the wild 24 months prior to hunting.

The South African Predator Breeders Association SAPBA appealed the decision on the basis that it is not economically feasible or profitable to release a lion for 24 months prior to hunting it. IT IS THE JUDGEMENT ON THIS APPEAL THAT HS RECENTLY BEEN RESERVED ( which means that the judgement has not been passed and the decision is still pending ) The hunters want the release period reduced to 96 hours - in our opinion this is still canned hunting but with additional stress and trauma to the animal !

It is not only the manner in which ' canned ' lion are hunted

( drugged, baited, tame, confined ) that is ethically and morally unacceptable , but there is also considerable opposition to the conditions under which the lion are bred.

It may take up to 5 yrs for a lion to reach huntable age and the captive conditions are generally not good. Many of these operations act as tourist facilities and lion may be teased to get reactions for the tourists and photographs.

Cubs are pulled from the mother as young as three days for hand rearing ( to supply tourist petting opportunities, to provide animals for international paying volunteers to rear, to tame the animals for easy handling and hunting, and to bring the female into oestrus \ breeding cycle again so that she has more litters than she would under normal circumstances)

The holding conditions are generally poor, the rearing conditions not good with cubs suffering nutritional problems,

the mother is continuously stressed by having her cubs removed and her health is compromised by excessive breeding. The genetic integrity of the captive bred lion is also questionable with back breeding and interbreeding.

The handling around the hunt is also stressful and cruel.

Some conservationists support captive breeding for hunting on the basis that it saves the wild populations but this is a fallacy. The canned hunting market has created a completely new market and does nothing to save the wild lion populations. The hunter who pays for a 21 day hunt of wild lion in Tanzania is not the same hunter who pays for guaranteed 1 day hunt in South Africa.

An NGO alliance which includes the top welfare, conservation, animal rights, and sanctuary, and wildlife rehabilitation and captive specialists have pulled together to address the welfare and conservation issues associated with the canned lion industry - whichever way the ruling goes and to give support to government in stopping this practice.

George Adamson " A lion is not a lion if it is only free to eat, sleep and to copulate. It deserves to be free to hunt and choose its own prey, to look for and find its own mate, to fight for and hold its own territory; and to die where it was born , in the wild."

Karen Trendler

NGO Alliance spokesperson

Hunting in South Africa a Bloody Mess ARA Report

2010-07-08T10:34:00.007+02:00

MEDIA RELEASE: 5 JULY2010

HUNTING IN SOUTH AFRICA: A BLOODY MESS

Animal Rights Africa (ARA) has just released a key report which takes an in-depth look at hunting activities in South Africa. The Report is available online:

http://www.animalrightsafrica.org/Archive/Hunting_in_South_Africa_A_Bloody_Mess_ARA_4_July_2010_final.pdf

More indepth information in this report.

South Africa has the largest hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. It is Africa’s most popular destination for foreigners wishing to kill anything from elephants to duikers. South Africa also has a large domestic recreational hunting industry. In addition bushmeat hunting, usually referred to as ‘poaching’, takes place in many parts of the country.

South Africa remains the world’s top ‘canned’ lion hunting destination, the rhino hunting permit system has been repeatedly abused in recent years to launder horn into the illegal medicine market in the East and some hunters are shooting animals which live in the Kruger National Park and cross unfenced boundaries into private and provincial nature reserves.

Over 1000 lions were killed in 2008 at a time when most people believed the industry had been stopped. It has not and still continues pending a court appeal. The Department of Water and Environmental Affairs has no current figures for the number of lions hunted.

According to research by the University Of North West in Potchefstroom, of more than a million wild animals are killed by hunters every year, some for meat but some just because they have large horns, tusks, or ‘pretty’ coats. Some, like African wild cats and genets, for example, are killed simply for fun and target practice. The Government supports this killing, arguing that hunting in South Africa is in line with concept of ‘sustainable utilisation of natural resources’. Ethics and scientific justification appear not to come into it.

Some hunters themselves argue that quest for increased economic returns and bigger trophy animals sometimes override what they view as “accepted practice”. Some private farms are overstocked and also populated with species that do not occur in the region in order to generate greater hunting income, hybrid and colour-variant animals are specially bred for hunting despite the disapproval of formal hunting organisations and in many instances animals have no chance of escape and are shot under conditions that amount to ‘canned hunting’.

But despite the size of the hunting industry in South Africa it is poorly monitored, partly because many provincial departments are cash strapped and many experience skills shortages. The overall picture of what happens in the hunting industry is further clouded by poor record-keeping at provincial and national government level. Animals are suffering extensively as a result.

Although South African National Parks (SANParks) has regularly denied that animals from the Kruger National Park are shot in provincial and private nature reserves that share unfenced boundaries with the Kruger, international hunters boast that they have killed elephant and buffalo which have crossed from the park. In the past SANParks has claimed that these animals are res nullius (i.e. they belong to no-one) once they leave the formal Kruger Park area and enter provincial and private reserves but this argument is irrational bearing in mind that: SANParks has agreed that the Kruger’s boundary fences be removed to allow the movement of animals; acknowledges that animals do indeed move freely between the areas; sits on management committees of these reserves; and also helps decide the hunting quotas.

Said ARA spokesperson, Michele Pickover, “SANParks recently acknowledged, contrary to previous denials, that animals move freely between these areas. However it refuses to publically acknowledge they may be shot. It is astounding that South Africa’s precious heritage, in the form of animals that move across imaginary boundaries from the Kruger National Park (which is widely regarded as a national asset and one of the jewels of the country’s conservation programme), are intentionally being allowed to be hunted and killed for profit with the fervent support and consent of the South African government and all its conservation agencies. Ordinary South Africans should be extremely concerned.”

The argument here is not whether hunting is legal in South Africa, it is whether SANParks is fulfilling its mandate to protect animals within National Parks. Allowing animals to be shot in areas which, as tourist operators, some hunters and SANParks themselves advertise, are part of an unfenced natural area which forms the Greater Kruger National Park is, we believe, a contravention of this mandate and the organisations’ responsibility to the people of South Africa in terms of the Protected Areas Act, 57 of 2003 (as amended by Act 31 of 2004), which prohibits certain ‘extractive activities’ in national parks, including hunting.
If the Government approves of the hunting of animals that cross from Kruger into provincial and private reserves they should proudly say so publicly – in other worlds Government must tell South Africa and the world that they don’t mind if national assets are killed for the enrichment of a few hunting outfitters and entertainment of a handful of rich foreigners.

Hunting, and the ethics of allowing it, in South Africa is in urgent need of widespread public scrutiny, debate and action. Urgently needed are new, ethics-based approaches to wildlife conservation. However, the way conservation is currently practiced in South Africa has become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
ARA believes hunting is an incorrect strategy to preserve Africa’s wildlife heritage and to promote ecotourism. Moreover, humanity has a duty of compassion and humanity towards animals and also at stake are issues of justice. The time is overdue for individuals, civil society and governments to recognise animals as complex, living beings, rather than as tools, objects and trophies.
Based on our Report, ARA believes that:
1. The entire concept of res nullius in relation to national, and provincial parks, needs to be scrapped.
2. There should be a national public consultation and review process of the 1996 Agreement signed between the National Parks Board (now SANParks) and the APNR, including the 1993 removal of the fences between the APNR and the Kruger National Park.
3. There is an urgent need for a widespread and public debate on the concept of sustainable utilisation in relation to hunting.
4. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive, transparent and public examination and investigation of the hunting industry. Should this study be undertaken the South African public will be appalled at what happens in South Africa’s bloody and ruthless hunting industry and will call for a speedy end to a practice which has no place in the modern world. The South African government should impose a moratorium on hunting until the findings of this public enquiry have been released.
5. Given that it is non-consumptive, ethical wildlife ecotourism which is a sustainable strategy to protect wildlife while also meeting human needs the government should be switching more land to photographic use and away from hunting.
6. Government conservation agencies (provincially and nationally) must publicly make available, through websites, up-to-date applications for hunting permits and hunting statistics.
7. Tourists need to be more proactive in informing themselves about which hunting and breeding destinations in South Africa are doubling up as ecotourism destinations and avoid choosing such places.

Ends.

Contact Details:
Michele Pickover
michele@animalrightsafrica.org
Mobile: 082 253 2124
www.animalrightsafrica.org

June 23 2010 Lion & other Big Cat meat still being sold for human consumption

2009-11-28T13:18:00.009+02:00

23 June 2010

LION MEAT STILL BEING SOLD

here is a latest link to show it is still happening and USA is allowing it 23 June 2010
http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/world/7445723/arizona-restaurant-serving-lion-meat/

http://brentwoodtradinggroup.com/exoticmeats.html were advertising Lion and tiger meat I see they have removed it from their site for sale but they have done that before and it crops up again on the site..... so keep an eye on this site.

It has come to my attention that Lion meat (Big Cat meat) Is still being sold by this company over the internet. It astounds me that the American Government actually allow this to happen. Besides the fact that the lions are on the red list of endangered species, and tigers are all but extinct, how can humans want to eat carnivore meat.
Carnivores that eat carnivores are cannibals in my opinion.

We are going to work really hard at trying to get this practice stopped, we will dig until we find the source and start there. How can you sell meat of endangered species?! This on its own is shocking. How can the American government issue permits for the sale of the meat of endangered species.

I would like all Americans who care to write to the department concerned and demand that they with-draw their permits for big cat meat.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Congressional and Legislative Affairs Washington
e mail address: laws@fws.gov

Below is and article published a while back about a restaurant selling lion meat on their menu whether they still are or not I am not sure.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/lion-meat628.html#cr

Seems there would be leg for us to stand on if we could afford to take this company to court to stop them selling this meat.
http://www.fws.gov/arsnew/regmap.cfm?arskey=11071

Any one who can assist with information regarding the above please contact us at gymnogenes@gmail.com thank you very much.

Stop killings on Robben Island

2009-11-08T16:30:00.001+02:00

ANIMAL RIGHTS ORGANISATION APPEALS TO PUBLIC FOR HELP TO STOP KILLINGS ON ROBBEN ISLAND

Animal Rights Africa (ARA) is outraged at the illegitimate killing of the deer, rabbits and guinea fowl, which have populated the Island for centuries and form an integral part of its heritage.

ARA has had access to the Robben Island Museum objectionable animal “eradication” plan and we confident there are more pro-active, sustainable and humane solutions to the problems of environmental degradation and these measures will also preserve the heritage of the Island for future generations and tourism purposes.

The more humane and compassionate representations and proposals by ARA and others – including a request for a moratorium on the killing- to those who control the Island and the entities advising them, have fallen on deaf ears. We believe that Robben Island management have not been properly advised, have not adequately applied their minds or have not consulted appropriately. We believe the SPCA has also erred in this matter.

ARA has already sought the assistance of the Office of the Public Protector and the National Prosecuting Authority. “We are appealing to the public to assist us as we would like to take legal action to prevent the management of the Robben Island Museum from executing the ill-advised contract they have entered into to kill the animals. This inhumane action and methodology, which has arisen solely as a consequence of the mismanagement of the national and international heritage site, is in contravention of Section 2 of the Animals Protection Act” said ARA spokesperson, Steve Smit.

It is ironic that globally this Island has come to symbolize victory over injustice and symbolism, and Nelson Mandela has said that for him the Island is now “a symbol of the finest qualities of the human spirit, rather than as a monument to the brutal tyranny and oppression of apartheid. It is true that Robben Island was once a place of darkness, but out of that darkness has come a wonderful brightness, a light so powerful that it could not be hidden behind prison walls…” but it seems that the Robben Island Management is determined to desecrate this internationally acclaimed heritage site and once again turn it into a place of oppression, injustice, exploitation, suffering and death.

Ends.

For more information contact:

Steve Smit +27 (0) 82 659 4711

ARA email - info@animalrightsafrica.org

ARA website – www.animalrightsafrica.org

Hands on, or hands off do APNR need to take a re-look at their policies. Postmortem by Janine Scorer

2009-10-10T14:45:00.012+02:00

Now that the dust has settled I would like to post mortem this event.

What ever the reasons, or motives for bringing this matter to the attention of Animal Rights Africa it needed to be done, as I feel that we should take notice of an animals suffering. I know many disagree with me, and that is fine we are all different and have different opinions. What did strike me was that people felt they needed to resort to personal insults toward myself and others, no matter which side of the argument they were on.
People who use personal insults are people who have nothing intelligent to say on the matter, and thus resort to insulting a person instead of discussing with them. I particularly found of interest, that people were keen to comment, but not put their names forward. The comments on this blog were all made anonymously, interesting if you truly believed in what you were saying why not sign your comment, I think it gives it more credibility.

Right with that said lets get down to business.

Let me say on the off set that I am not some one who thinks my opinion is the only opinion, I am happy to listen to other opinions as long as they are done with reason and with out insult. I also don’t profess to know it all, and feel that no one will ever really know it all where nature is concerned.

I feel that this case to me highlights the fact that us, in the APNR (Association of Private Nature Reserves) need to take a long hard re-look, at the non interference/intervention policy. I will outline my reasons below.

Okay why I feel we should help especially the larger herbivores is.-
Reason number one the larger herbivores suffering is less likely to be cut short without human intervention.
Unlike your antelope, zebra, giraffe they are not easily and sometimes almost never taken out by predators.
The elephant that are being taken out by predators in Botswana are by a pride of lions that specialise in this, and only take out young elephant never old or fully adult elephant, they just could never do this.
So when we become aware of an elephant who is suffering, even if it is because of old age and nature, as humans it is the humane thing to do to assist this animal by ending its suffering, whether it be by medical intervention or euthanasia. The excuse of the calf, was used to create support for the hands off cause, but as most of us know, the elephant family is a very close knit family and a calf of that age is already considered as part of the herd, it will naturally be taken care of by the rest of the herd, so that had nothing to do with the issue in my opinion. Euthanizing a suffering elephant will also not stop the other elephant in the herd from coming to pay their last respects, what did you think the vet would do cut it up can carry it away? Whether the animal died from euthanasia, being shot by hunters/poachers or dieing naturally they would still come to say goodbye.

A comment made on a blog that concerned me was the following -
“The medical details are not important, the fact that she lived a full life, a rich life and died of old age, is.”
I am sorry I strongly dissagree, I think the medical details of the case are very important, as the whole argument hinged around the suffering of the elephant and us allowing it to continue to suffer as part of a hands off policy. How can any one, as a compassionate human being stand by for two* weeks, and watch an animal suffer when we have the ability, and facilities to help the elephant, whether it be by medical intervention or euthenasia. For people who do not understand euthenasia, it is something that is never done with a light heart even if you know you are ending the extreme suffering of a creature, it is a very hard and emotional thing to carry out. Only those who have had to do it will know truly how it feels.
*(the timing is from all the articles & posts on web sites, from which I gather that humans were aware of her plight, I stand to be corrected on this.)

The argument which is used is that if it is not human induced hands off.

Well we need to look at that.
Now day’s there is human intervention all the way.
• What are fences? natural ?!
• What are human built and borehole fed water holes? Natural ?!
• What is culling? Natural?!
• What is trophy hunting? Natural?!
• Taking animals off because of increased numbers and selling them ? Natural?!
• The lack of natural migration routes due to fencing and urbanisation has a huge impact on animals.

Okay I think by now you are getting my drift.

It seems that if we are to successfully implement a hands off policy we need to address all of the above.

Only after we have addressed all the above issues and returned earth to its original state can we adopt a hands off policy…….yes I know it will never go back to the way it was…….therefore we need to re look at how we think about what is precious to this planet. (Not human beings by the way, we like to think we are the end all and be all of the planet, but in fact we are going very quickly toward being the End All of this planet). By Janine Scorer

Neither of the Elephant in the above picuture are the elephant discussed here.

ARA End of Female Elephant's suffering in Sabie Sands

2009-09-28T21:11:00.008+02:00

05.10.09 Upate on the Elephant cow, it was reported to me last night that the cow died yesterday, and that they opend her up to do an autopsy, her death happend with out intervention. Her suffering is now at an end. RIP dear Elephant. Update from Louise Joubert. Just had confirmation from the vet on the ground that the elephant cow in Djuma died during the night and a post mortem was done yesterday. Post mortem results confirmed that she died a prolonged and very painful death. Impaction caused the gut to twist leaving her in severe pain and with a terrible infection. Nothing could have saved her!

Latest re Elephant in Sabie Sands http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article134233.eceRight of reply from Mr Moolman re article below:- click in link for his side of the story, http://www.djuma.com/blog/index.php?itemid=87
Reply from Mrs Moolman http://www.blogger.com/posts.g?blogID=5917157577305742150

Animal Rights Africa

PRESS RELEASE: 28 September 2009

Animal Protection Organisations and Government Work Together to End Suffering of Female Elephant in Sabi Sands

Animal Rights Africa (ARA) was appalled by the news that managers at the prestigious private game reserve, Sabi Sands, adjoining Kruger National Park, had allowed an elephant cow to suffer for over two weeks with what appear to be birth complications. The ongoing suffering of the elephant has been viewed by millions of people across the world via a live internet channel.

ARA contacted the reserve head to ascertain why nothing was being done to help the animal and was told that the reserve followed a policy of “non-intervention” in cases where animal suffering or distress were the result of natural processes.

“I spoke to Jurie Moolman of Sabie Sands who informed me of their reserve’s non-intervention policy which precluded him from assisting the suffering elephant in any way,” said Steve Smit, spokesperson for ARA. “I disagreed with his reasoning, after which he undertook to bring up the matter with the reserve’s ecological management committee at a meeting later today (September 29, 2009)”.

“Moolman said he was aware that the elephant was suffering and that it was very distressing for him to know this, but his hands were tied in terms of a management agreement with SANParks and the KNP whereby Sabie Sands is compelled not to intervene in cases like this,” Smit said. “I immediately phoned Dr David Mabunda, CEO of SANParks who informed me that under no circumstances would SANParks support a management policy that permitted the prolonged suffering of any animal in the wild, irrespective of the cause of that suffering. He added that in a case such as this one concerning the elephant cow, Sabie Sands has access to the veterinary and other assistance of Kruger Park, and that this assistance should have been called for as soon as the suffering of the elephant became known. Dr Mabunda assured me that he would immediately look into the matter. He called back a short while later to tell me that the head Kruger Park vet was dealing with the matter and that he expected the issue to be resolved soon in the most humanely practical manner.”

Smit said that ARA was heartened by the prompt response of SANParks which showed that the welfare of individual animals and a duty to care is an important component of their management plan.

We were also pleased to learn that the NSPCA was taking the matter very seriously and had telephonically notified Moolman that they would consider legal action against Sabie Sands if it was shown that their actions so far were in contravention of the Animal Protection Act.

Ends.

Ongoing war between David Mabunda & Animal rights Africa

2009-09-06T08:28:00.004+02:00

Anti-hunting groups have misfired

August 30, 2009 Edition 1
David Mabunda
On May 10 and 17 this year, The Sunday Independent published two articles based on an earlier interview I had graciously agreed to on Eleanor Momberg's request.
The publication of the interview in two segments elicited vitriolic and venomous attacks on my personal integrity after comments I made were misinterpreted by my detractors as reflective of SANParks' policy on the sustainable use of natural resources.
Contrary to what was said by my critics, I never wrote any article or opinion piece for The Sunday Independent. The interview was about my personal history and put forward a wide variety of positions and perspectives on conservation matters. Regrettably my critics cooked a storm in a teacup over the "juicy bits" - culling and sustainable hunting.
I'm left wondering what crime I committed that warranted the "blitzkrieg" response from the regional director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Mr Jasson Bell-Leask ("Pitfalls of an outdated approach to conservation management", May 24) and Animal Rights Africa (ARA) represented by Michelle Pickover and Steve Smit ("SANParks is hiding behind indefensible excuses", May 31).
IFAW and ARA, although different in their architecture and gearing, are joined at the waist in opposing any form of sustainable-use practices and culling of animals, including elephants.
They seem to be too focused, obsessed even, on issues that only form a relatively minor part of managing a complex and diverse conservation organisation like SANParks in the 21st century and the importance of compliance with one of the main objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) - to ensure that biodiversity conservation translates into access and benefit-sharing for the socio-economic upliftment of poor communities living adjacent to protected areas.
Their morbid views lead to inappropriate investment into trendy "conservation initiatives" of one kind or another to discredit successful state conservation institutions and liken its leadership to the apartheid-era conservation managers.
A strong, financially viable and functional state conservation institution is not in the interest of any animal rights and welfare NGO because its independence from donor funding to execute its primary functions limits opportunities for animal rights and welfare NGOs to influence the conservation policies of the state. The references to "failed conservation policies or outdated approaches to conservation" are nothing but grand public relations stunts.
Let me repeat my earlier responses to the lie peddled by our detractors that SANParks is allowing Kruger Park animals to be hunted on community-owned land adjacent to it. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have done no such thing. We are a responsible national custodian of the national park system. The fact that the Timbavati game reserve (as part of the Association of Private Nature Reserves) hunts certain quotas in terms of the historical agreement that was entered into with the previous SANParks leadership is a truism inherited from the past. The matter has been contested in the High Court and the said court, based on evidence before it, ruled in favour of Timbavati. My advice to the anti-hunting lobby is to take this matter to the Appeal Court rather than levelling false accusations at SANParks. It is clear to all and sundry that this is an anti-hunting campaign directed at a soft target.
I categorically deny that SANParks is "pushing the agenda of the powerful commercial hunting industry", and certainly I'm not their apologetic spokesman. Why would I take such a burden when I already have the huge task of managing one of the largest and most complex conservation agencies in the world? Hunting is a legal land use in this country in certain designated areas, bar national parks, and indeed there is a tiny band of hunters who are bringing the industry into disrepute through their unethical practices. It is not for SANParks to "police" these shenanigans but to refer any such repugnant deeds to law enforcement agencies. The entire debate on hunting is being addressed by the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs and should not be directed to SANParks. Our mandate does not have a single reference to "hunting" in it.
I'm not a hunter myself and no dead animals "grace" my lounge - but I'm not opposed to those who hunt. It is their democratic right to do so just as it is the democratic right for people to associate with animal rights NGOs in this country.
The public has been left with a mistaken image of our policy on the sustainable use of resources which was deliberately misconstrued to fit the ARA and IFAW attacks on SANParks. We were accused of killing South Africa's heritage.
The Protected Areas Act of 2003, as amended, excludes any form of extractive use including mining and hunting in national parks.
We can't even dig river sand for construction, maintenance and renovation of infrastructure work or "harvest" firewood. Park managers have to source such commodities from outside the parks.
Our sustainable-use policy is premised on the international prescripts of article 10 of the CBD which calls on all parties to:
The mainstay of sustainable use in national parks is ecotourism activities, which underpin our objective of using tourism as a conservation strategy.
In 2000 we joined our communities outside Kruger Park and repaired public infrastructure such as roads, bridges, schools, clinics and boreholes after floods that had disrupted the lives of the local communities.
Communities constitute BEE partners in our luxury lodge concessions businesses.
We have created medicinal nurseries for indigenous use in line with traditional and cultural practices to support communities where there is no (medical) doctor. We are the biggest sponsors of food security gardens and allow communities to supply our restaurant outlets with their produce. Our entire procurement and commercial activities account for a large slice of sustainable use.
We educate approximately 150 000 learners per annum in all the parks at huge cost. We offer bursaries and scholarships for university studies and employ the graduates in the various careers available.
Our track record in implementing sustainable use is broad and has no peer. We are assisting adjacent communities to set up buffer zones for ecotourism purposes in Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) outreach programmes. Recently we have provided the Mjejane community with animals worth over R40m for its ecotourism venture in the Hectorspruit area. None of these animals will be hunted.
In the 2006/07 financial year we commissioned an independent study of the economic impacts of the existence of national parks through Urban Econ, peer-reviewed by the University of Pretoria. The study found that SANParks created approximately 100 000 jobs directly and indirectly through various industry sectors such as construction, tour operating, travel and car hire, retail outlets, lodges in private nature reserves surrounding national parks, various procurement opportunities for small SMMEs etc.
It would be interesting to see what animal rights and welfare NGOs have done for our society besides megaphone politics in newspaper columns and radio stations.
Perhaps ARA and the Southern Africa regional IFAW want to emulate the "success" that IFAW and the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) achieved in Kenya in 2004 when they successfully lobbied the president not to sign an important amendment to the Wildlife Act (World Economics Vol 8, No 2 April-June 2007). Hunting and sustainable use policies were banned in Kenya in 1977 with the heavy lobbying of animal rights and welfare NGOs, thus triggering unintended backdoor plundering of wildlife for the bush meat trade.
This led to private land owners having little interest in practising wildlife economics in the same manner as the private nature reserves do in South Africa. In general, wildlife in Kenya has declined by between 60 percent and 70 percent (World Economics Vol 8, No 2, April-June 2007). The proposed amendment to the Wildlife Act to provide for greater participation of wildlife landowners who owned rangelands, and to address the issue of compensation for the loss of human life and damage to property, thus transformed conservation management practice.
The amendment came from the floor of the House, went through all the required procedures, debates and public consultations, including the Attorney-General's office, and was properly voted on by parliamentarians.
However, the foreign animal rights and welfare NGOs were able to hijack the entire consultative process by shipping in rent-a-mob crowds who successfully reduced everything to an endless shouting match about the amendment being a ploy to "re-introduce hunting and sustainable use" in Kenya.
IFAW launched a massively well-funded publicity campaign in newspapers and on TV with posters in Nairobi and the international airport. Noticeable by their silence were the established progressive international conservation NGOs, including the WWF, African Wildlife Foundation and the IUCN, all of which have regional offices in Kenya. They were frightened off by IFAW's publicity campaign and the threat of being labeled as advocates of "killing animals for fun".
No one has any objection to IFAW or ARA holding an opinion, but one can and must question the lengths they are prepared to go to achieve their objectives. I argue that such objectives are not in the interest of conservation in Africa but to please their masters in the northern hemisphere.
As Deepak Lal elegantly puts it: "Foreign NGOs claim to speak on behalf of the world's poor but in fact speak the language of the world's rich and invariably seek their own agendas and purpose rather than those they purport to help. Through their financial strength and access to political elites, especially in poor countries, they are able to subvert the representative democratic process and insinuate foreign minority views into what are supposedly parliamentary majority voting systems." (Lal, 2006, Reviving the Invisible Hand: the case for classical liberalism in the 21st Century. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.)
I thank the South African government for its commitment to fund conservation in this country, thus saving us from the vagaries of the likes of IFAW and other animal rights and welfare organisations as is the case in other African countries where these NGOs rule the roost. ARA might argue that it is indigenous to Africa, but its links (as displayed on its website) with the international animal rights fraternity place it squarely in the realm of this new form of colonialism and imperialism.
The current leadership at SANParks was raised and shaped between the hammer and the anvil of the liberation struggle, and as such it will not support policies that are at odds with the protection of the dignity of conservation, indigenous people and the national heritage for the equitable benefit of all and make national parks the pride and joy of all citizens.
Dr David Mabunda is the chief executive officer of South African National Parks
Source: Sunday Indepdendent for subscriptions please go to http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/

Reply by ARA

'Mabunda smear tactics a low blow'

September 06, 2009 Edition 1
Michele Pickover
Animal Rights Africa is dismayed at the unwarranted attack on ARA by SANParks CEO Dr David Mabunda in his opinion piece, "Anti-hunting groups have misfired" (Sunday Independent, August 30, 2009). But clearly, in our dedication to ending the unnecessary suffering of oppressed and exploited sentient beings, ARA has struck a raw nerve.
Let us start with Mabunda's simplistic and patent attempt to side-line and discredit ARA. By implying that ARA is part of some kind of international illuminati-type conspiracy from the North, Mabunda makes use of apartheid-style smear tactics worthy of P W Botha. Why is it so difficult for Mabunda to accept that ARA is a "proudly South African" initiative that is simply part of a global trend towards the expansion of justice and respect for all animals (humans included)?
The liberation struggle in South Africa was part of a global momentum towards recognising the dignity and integrity of oppressed people the world over. Why are the same principles, when applied to the animal liberation struggle, so difficult for him to comprehend? It is clear that Mabunda has not bothered to understand what the guiding principles of the animal liberation and animal rights movement are. It is therefore absurd and disingenuous in the extreme that he tries to link our movement to colonialism and imperialism.
We are a new global breed of activism and we are part of the new social movements: seeking new relations with the natural world and an end of hierarchies. As a South African advocacy and campaigning organisation that is trying to contribute to policy debates and formulation in relation to wildlife, ARA obviously welcomes robust engagement, but Mabunda's vitriolic response is worrying because at its core it damages constitutional democracy in South Africa.
By striking out at NGOs like ARA he is showing unacceptable intolerance for those that he perceives as not totally in support of SANParks - the kind of censoring "if you are not with us, you are against us" position. Not everything can and should be state-driven. By taking such an intolerant stand, Mabunda is making a cynical and comprehensive attack on the rights of civil society to legitimately organise themselves.
The irony is that it is current government neoliberal conservation policies which are reproductions of old colonial economic logic where the unfettered exploitation of natural and human resources was (and is) the norm. So it does not surprise us that in South Africa it is pro-utilisation lobby organisations, donors, individuals and governments from the North that rule the roost and with whom government conservation agencies partner withAlong with Mabunda, members of the IUCN and other aligned organisations are largely proponents of so-called "wise use" interest groups, the very antithesis of "progressive conservation". Rather than consider the sustainability of wildlife and ecosystems, wise use emphasises sustaining the maximum human consumptive use of the animals and the environment.
Mabunda's unwarranted swipe at Kenya and its wildlife policies, which he says have been hijacked by animal rights and welfare NGOs, is patronising and dismissive of Kenya's sovereignty. It is far-fetched to claim, as he does, that animal rights and welfare NGOs have the financial and political clout to influence the views of Kenyans on such a grand scale. Kenya will no doubt reply to this poisonous allegation itself. But, let us be clear, through a consultative process, it is the majority of communities living with wildlife in Kenya who are overwhelmingly opposed to the resumption of trophy hunting, believe that it will negate conservation and provide even fewer returns for local communities in wildlife areas. The fact that Kenyans seem to be weighing up the arguments and then choosing to take a more respectful stand is laudable. It is Kenya who leads the fight at every Cites meeting against countries, such as SA and Namibia, and "wise use" lobby groups, that are trying to weaken protection and who push trophy hunting and the trade in wildlife as the panacea for protecting wildlife. Is this the real reason why Mabunda is so keen to misrepresent Kenya?
ARA will continue to push for vigorous public debate and policy change that will build our democracy and not stifle it. We can only hope that SANParks will be gracious enough to accept that.
Michele Pickover is Co-ordinator: Animal Rights Africa
Source Sunday Independent: for subscriptions click here http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/

2009-09-03T11:33:00.005+02:00

September 02 2009 at 03:35PM
The poaching war in the Kruger National Park intensified on Wednesday with an announcement by SANParks that seven more white rhino have been killed over the past month.This brings the total number of rhino the flagship reserve has lost to poachers since the beginning of the year to 33."It is with sadness that we announce that since... the end of July, we have lost a further seven white rhino to poachers," SANParks chief executive David Mabunda said in a statement.According to SANParks, all seven carcasses were discovered with the horns hacked out.Six suspected poachers had been arrested, and five illegal firearms seized.

A fact sheet posted on SANParks website on July 27, says poachers killed 26 white and one black rhino in the Kruger in the first seven months of this year.It also shows a recent sharp rise in the number of white rhino poached in national parks and provincial protected areas around the country, with more killed over the past 18 months than in the preceding eight years.From 2000 to 2007, a total of 120 white rhino were killed nationally, while from January 2008 to end July this year, a total of 134 fell victim to poachers.Mabunda said it was alarming that of the 33 rhinos poached in the Kruger this year, 28 were killed along its eastern boundary with Mozambique. Of the 14 poaching suspects arrested by park authorities this year, all were Mozambican.Efforts to stem the poaching would be stepped up."Discussions have been started with Mozambican authorities to solicit their assistance in apprehending suspects and preventing illegal activities from proliferating on their side of the fence," he said.According to SANParks general manager media and stakeholder relations, Reynold Thakhuli, the fence along the Kruger's eastern border with Mozambique is down."The fence is still down - along its whole length - in the east of the park, in terms of the establishment of the transfrontier conservation area," he told Sapa on Wednesday.The latest rhino deaths follow an announcement by Mabunda, in July this year, that more rangers would be deployed in the Kruger."Poachers must beware, because we will seek them out, we will find them and they will be dealt with. This is a war that we plan on winning," he said at the time.White rhinos - the world's second-largest land mammals - are targeted by poachers for their horns, which sell for thousands of dollars each.Figures show the rise in rhino poaching is not just confined to the Kruger National Park.Reserves and protected areas in KwaZulu-Natal have lost 30 rhino over the past 18 months, while 24 have been killed in Limpopo, and 10 in North West over the same period.According to SANParks, the white rhino population of the Kruger National Park is performing "exceptionally well", and increasing at a rate of 11.9 percent a year."At present, the white rhino population in Kruger is estimated at between 9 000 and 12 000 animals," it says on its website. - Sapa

source: http://www.travelwires.com/wp/2009/09/improved-anti-poaching-efforts-yield-results-sanparks/

Another Article on South Africa not looking after their rhino
http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=104192,1,22

Improved anti-poaching efforts yield results – SANParksFeatured, PR Talk — By Muzi Mohale on September 2, 2009 at 8:46 pm

Improved anti-poaching efforts yield results – SANParks

South African National Parks (SANParks) announced today that more poachers have been apprehended in recent weeks due to the increased efforts to stamp down on poaching of rhino and other high value wildlife in the Kruger National Park.
In July 2009 SANParks announced that the organisation had lost 26 white rhino and one black rhino to poaching and an added 10.3kg of rhino horn through a violent robbery in the Addo Elephant National Park.
“It is with sadness that we announce that since our announcement at the end of July we have lost a seven white rhino to poachers. However, the greatest news to come out of these despicable activities is that SANParks has since apprehended another six suspected rhino poachers and the recovery of five illegal firearms,” said Dr David Mabunda, the Chief Executive of SANParks

The new arrests bring the number of arrested suspects to 14, with 11 recovered illegal firearms.
Dr Mabunda said that what is alarming about this information is that of the 33 rhinos (including 1 black rhino) poached this year 28 of them were illegally killed along the eastern boundary with Mozambique and all the 14 suspects arrested thus far were of Mozambican origin.
“We intend to increase our efforts even more in ensuring that this scourge is routed out. Discussions have been started with Mozambican authorities to solicit their assistance in apprehending suspects and preventing illegal activities from proliferating on their side of the fence,” said Dr Mabunda.
SANParks has pledged a sum of R5.2 million from its Park Development Fund which is aimed at improving anti-poaching interventions in the KNP. The funds are being used for increasing the number of field rangers by 57 people as well as buying more vehicles and a state of the Crime Information Management System.
For other previous related articles on the matter please visit the SANParks website http://www.sanparks.org/ or link to the following pages:
http://www.sanparks.org/about/news/2009/july/rhino_response_knp.php

http://www.sanparks.org/about/news/2009/july/rhino_response.php

http://www.sanparks.org/about/news/2009/september/mabunda_editorial.php

source:http://www.travelwires.com/wp/2009/09/improved-anti-poaching-efforts-yield-results-sanparks/

2009-09-01T14:48:00.003+02:00

PRESS ADVISORY: 31 August 2009 In the past few months a war of words has erupted between SANParks and Animal Rights Africa over the management of rhinoceroses in South Africa’s national and provincial Parks and on private land. But despite SANParks’ angry kneejerk response there is little doubt that national and international concern about the current protection and management of these animals in South Africa abounds. Said ARA spokesperson, Michele Pickover, “whether SANParks likes it or not, the public have a right to be concerned, to express this concern and to expect transparency and accountability from government agencies. By allowing ‘sustainable use’ to trump issues of conservation, biodiversity protection and concern for the welfare of wildlife, government conservation agencies seem to be interpreting their mandate as custodians in way that is contentious and contested. As a consequence they need to give a public account of how they discharge their custodial role, they need to be accountable to stakeholders and they need to encourage public discourse rather than to lash out and shoot the messenger.” The ARA Report, Under Siege: Rhinoceroses in South Africa, which also collated information relating to the hunting, trade and poaching of rhinos, reveals a worrying trend: enormous suffering, a lack of centralised statistics and data, an uncoordinated response from authorities, insufficient enforcement and resources to adequately protect South Africa’s rhino population and a general way of thinking that promotes killing instead of protection and respect.South Africa is currently entrusted with the vast majority of the world’s population of rhinos, but at the same time it has become abundantly clear that not only are rhinoceroses in South Africa facing one of their worst threats ever as a species, but they are literally under siege. South Africa is quite literally the last bastion for rhinoceroses in the world but the colossal growth of rhino killings (both legal and illegal) and the concomitant insufficient anti‐poaching capacity ability and poor record keeping means that rhinoceroses are facing untold suffering, exploitation and death and has the potential to once again threaten the survival of the entire species. Poaching of rhinos in South Africa has reached the highest levels in decades. In the short space of 19 months, poaching of rhinoceroses in South Africa has accelerated to a rate almost six times higher than that of the previous eight years and at the same time South Africa has become the conduit of most of the rhinoceros horns leaving the African continent.Generally, the threats rhinos in South Africa are facing are: Government policies that promote overt consumptive use; Trophy hunting; Trade in live rhinoceroses; Demand for rhinoceros horn; Poaching; Inadequate field protection; Insufficient funds and resources to protect rhinoceroses; Lack of data (both nationally and provincially) and Statistical inconsistencies. It is unclear how the Department can confidently supply information to CITES, or indeed Parliament and the Minister, when officials regularly admit that provincial data keeping is in many cases poor. The findings of the ARA Report reveal that there is an urgent need to: Improve data collection at both provincial and national level; Re‐examine the permit system under which government sellers of rhino abrogate their responsibility with regard to what happens to the animal once it has been sold; End all rhinos hunting in South Africa because it has been proven to be as great a problem as poaching; Re‐examine the entire CITES reporting procedure because it is quite clear that limited and often inaccurate information is submitted; Open the government policy of ‘sustainable use’ and trophy hunting to public debate; Publicly publish through websites up‐to‐date applications for hunting permits and hunting statistics; Impose an immediate moratorium on all capture, sale, translocation and hunting of rhino in South Africa. “Rhinoceros poaching has put South Africa in the spotlight, even within the framework of CITES, and it is likely South Africa will have to answer serious questions at the next CITES Conference of the Parties, to be held in Doha in March 2010” said Pickover.

Full report click on link below

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.animalrightsafrica.org%2FArchive%2FARA_Report_Under_Siege_Rhinos_in_South_Africa2009.pdf&h=607261b2fc78f0f988642afccd6731fe

2009-08-20T14:58:00.009+02:00

Hunting in APNR...stats from SANParks

Summary of proposed hunting off-take by the APNR for the 2008/2009 period

Species & Proposed Off-take numbers

Elephant 55

Buffalo 144

Impala 5003

Zebra 7

Kudu 19

Lion 2

White Rhino 7

Hippo 3

Leopard 1

Waterbuck 4

Warthog 6

I have just returned from the APNR area after a three week visit in and around the area. I saw over that period of time 5 different vehicles with hunters and hunting rifles, driving around the Klaserie cut lines, east and west cut lines. One of the gate guards informed me that most of them were there to hunt Elephant. They captured just over a hundred impala for auction on Olifants North Reserve over this period too.

South Africans involved in rhino poaching in Zimbabwe

2009-08-20T07:45:00.003+02:00

South African men part of Zimbabwe rhino poaching set

Eleanor Momberg, The Cape ArgusAugust 16, 2009

South Africans are involved in the poaching of rhinos and other endangered species in Zimbabwe, according to conservationists and wildlife monitors. The claim comes in the midst of denials by the father of Prince Harry'sformer girlfriend, Charles Davy, that he was linked to a poaching syndicate that allegedly involved two Zimbabwean ministers. "South Africans have been involved in poaching for quite some time in Zimbabwe," said David Newton, head of Traffic, the wildlife trade monitoring network, this week. "It is not just rhino poaching, but also generalised poaching. They are taking advantage of a collapsed system there." South Africans were also linked to the bush meat trade, which saw the appearance of mobile butcheries near poaching sites and the sale of game meat to not only the luxury end of theZimbabwean market, but also to the export market, said Traffic. The involvement of South Africans in killing Zimbabwe's depleting wildlife was also confirmed by Johnny Rodrigues, head of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force (ZCTU), and Prof John Skinner of the Onderstepoort Centre for Veterinary Wildlife. Both alleged that two Afrikaans-speaking men from Musina were among those leading poaching operations in Zimbabwe. Rodrigues also implicated two brothers from Alldays, Limpopo, particularly for lion poaching in protected areas.Skinner said the "whole poaching operation" was being run by the two Musina men. "The authorities know who they are, but cannot nail them." Musa Zondi, spokesman for the police's organised crime unit, yesterday said the police were working with the Zimbabwean authorities in "trying to crack and smash syndicates involved in poaching or any other crime". Zondi said while some syndicates did have Chinese links, most of those operating in South Africa used locals. Rodrigues said poaching of rhinos had reached critical levels, with between four and 12 white and black rhinos being killed monthly. Only five of the 54 rhinos in the Midlands Conservancy have not been killed by poachers in the past eight months, while three rhinos had been poached in the past week in the Bubye Valley Conservancy, partly owned by Davy. More than 50 rhinos had been shot for their horns this year, and an estimated 120 were killed last year. Zimbabwe's rhino population, he said, was estimated to be about 350, of which 100 were to be found at Bubye Valley.

2009-07-20T12:21:00.002+02:00

'I shot a lion in Africa' Derek Taylor July 19 2009 at 10:09AM interesting article
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=vn20090719091252729C291952

This is the latest article on the Rhino saga written by Eleanor Momberg http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_id=vn20090719063628362C640547

Mauricedale - John Hume Taxidermy business linked to Singapore ???????

http://www.customs-data.net.cn/SINGAPORE-SINGAP/MAURICEDALE-TAXIDERMY.html

What can one start to think about this connection, seeing the hunting pages with the rhino with such beautiful large horns in the links below ??

2009-07-17T12:41:00.007+02:00

This is where some of the rhino refered to in articles below went ...... If that is not hunting then I don't know what is.
white rhino: http://www.africatrophyhunting.com/TrophyRoom.asp?sf=8&PageStack=%2FTrophies.asp%3Fsf%3D8&Id=56Black rhino: http://www.africatrophyhunting.com/TrophyRoom.asp?sf=8&PageStack=%2FTrophies%2Easp%3Fsf%3D8&Id=55Sabel: http://www.africatrophyhunting.com/TrophyRoom.asp?sf=8&PageStack=%2FTrophies%2Easp%3Fsf%3D8&Id=10And a article refrencing john as owner of mauricedale: http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=ct20000625205215317R500996

Response from SANParks to Misleading Reports and Claims about Rhino Sales and Hunting in National ParksYesterday (Tuesday, 14 July 2009), South African National Parks (SANParks) Chief Executive Dr David Mabunda addressed a media briefing at its Head Office, Groenkloof National Park, in response to tackle the issues of rhino sales and hunting in National Parks. He opened the discussion by saying “we need to dispel the confusion created in recent media reports, between the sale of rhino and hunting in and outside national parks.” South African National Parks is guided in it decision to sell or distribute white rhino and other wildlife by Clause 55(2) (b) of the Protected Areas Act, 57 of 2003 (as amended) which states that: “South African National Parks may, in managing national parks sell, exchange or donate any animal, plant, or other organism occurring in a park, or purchase, exchange or otherwise acquire any indigenous species which it may consider desirable to reintroduce into a specific park.”The decisions by SANParks to sell white rhino are scientifically determined. Dr Mabunda said that the decisions on off-take quotas of wildlife are scientifically determined, based on population growth, sex and age structure, spatial use, natural dispersal, resource distribution and population dynamics. He added that the present removal rate has no detectable consequences on population growth, with the start of only 4 donated white rhinos in 1961 to the current population estimated at between 9000 and 12 000 white rhinos in the Kruger National Park. South Africa has the most viable and healthy rhino population in the world. According to 2007 statistics there were approximately 17 000 rhino in the world, with approximately 15 000 of those in South Africa. About 9 000 of them at the time were under the management of SANParks, and the second largest population in the country, estimated at 4000, was managed by private hands, while the rest was found in Provincial parks. At present SANParks has between 9000 and 12 000 rhinos.According to CITES, rhinos are an endangered species, pegged at Appendix 1, except for the populations of South Africa and Swaziland which are on Appendix 2. CITES regulates that animals on Appendix 2 are for the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations and hunting trophies, while those on Appendix 1 shall be deemed to be specimens of species and trade in them shall be regulated accordingly. “What this means is that South African rhino populations are not endangered and can be sold or exchanged, however South Africa has made a conscious decision not to allow trophy hunting in national parks”, said Dr Mabunda. He said: “SANParks, by selling or donating rhinos is assisting in the process of re-colonisation of the range in the country and outside. It should be noted that it would be fool-hardy if South Africa were to have its only rhino population residing in the Kruger, because we run the danger of losing them should there be a major outbreak of disease or rampant poaching. We would be sitting ducks.” The accident that occurred on the N4 with the one rhino was not as a result of animals being unsuitably transported, but a tire burst which we have no control over. The 10 rhinos that died of the 72 rhinos sent to Mr John Hume is something we are investigating in order to understand what happened. There is nothing wrong with selling a number of rhinos to a single operator as long as the conditions of the operation and the land size are permitting.South Africa has about 43,9 million ha of land under biodiversity protection, of the country’s overall 121 million ha. Of this amount, only about 6,9 million ha are protected under the State, while about 37million ha is privately owned land which has been brought under conservation at various levels of protection. “The enormous amount of protected land under private hands gives South Africa an undeniable opportunity to broaden the ranges of wildlife, thereby improving resilience in the system” said Dr Mabunda.Dr Mabunda also said: “Much has been said about Kruger National Park animals being sold to entities that may put them up for hunting. I want to state up front that we do not have anything against hunting or hunters as long as they do not hunt within a national park, however, we will not allow SANParks to be abused by the anti-hunting lobby. We deal only with ethical operators and if we should learn otherwise, SANParks makes the decision not to continue doing business with them.” SANParks does not have a regulatory mandate for hunting in the country as it does not issue hunting permits. In South Africa, nature conservation is a concurrent mandate which can be read in Schedule 4 of the South African Constitution of 1996. In terms of this, provincial conservation agencies are responsible for laws and regulations pertaining to permits and handling of wildlife outside national parks. SANParks sells and donates rhinos and other large mammals for both the management of its own populations and also for meta-population management. The SANParks strategy is informed by the following objectives: population control; broadening of the range for populations; spreading the risk of managing wildlife; making the populations more resilient and viable and fundraising for specific conservation and land-expansion programmes. We are not going to suspend the sale of excess rhino as long as national legislation and policies permit. SANParks will continue to sell and distribute these animals in accordance with our management strategies.When the Honourable MP, Bantu Holomisa legitimately raised a concern that KNP animals were being hunted in Timbavati (a member of the APNR contractual parks to the KNP), the Limpopo Environment and Tourism Authority decided to withhold hunting permits to the reserve. Timbavati took the Provincial Authority to court and the Provincial authority lost with costs. Decisions by the court supersede organisational policies and assist in the correct interpretation of applicable legislation.In response to the ARA statement which was released yesterday, Dr Mabunda said that the assertions made in that statement were “a cacophony of baseless emotional outbursts.” To claim that “actions (taken by SANParks) speak of failed management policies” lacks rational thinking or knowledge of our mandate and business, as SANParks rhino populations have been growing since 1961 and since the 80’s when we started with the selling of excess animals in the park. Objectives of ecosystem integrity and economic sustainability have been reconciled.South African National Parks is the only successful conservation institution in the world which has been able to generate 80% of its annual operational budget of R1.2 billion from sustainable commercial interventions, while other conservation institutions have, to a greater extent depended on government funding and other large corporations; funding which has in recent times been critically reduced. We will soon be receiving a delegation of officials from the largest and richest national parks authority in the world, the US Parks Authority, to come and learn from us how to revive the viability and sustainability of the parks system in the US. The claims that SANParks has given concessions for hunting to contractual parks come as news to us, because we do not know of any such decision. We invite anyone who has such documented decisions to bring them to our attention. It should be understood that communities around national parks who intend to bring their land for contractual agreements may have a shopping list of things they want to do, but it is our duty and our responsibility to guide them in that which is permissible in a national park. So far, that is what we have been doing. For ARA to equate SANParks to a museum is to expose a grand level of ignorance of the business of national parks as we are not in the business of dead artefacts (albeit priceless) but in the business of living and transforming organisms. ARA needs to understand that animal rights should be seen in the context of the eco-system and its importance to the survival of natural life as we know it. We welcome and look forward to the ARA-promised “explosive investige (sic) report” and want to say that in actual fact, they can take us to court on these matters so that we may settle this once and for all, because we are confident that we have correctly interpreted national and international legislation and have stayed true to our principles and ethics. Whoever has concrete evidence (rather than wild statements and insult) to support their allegations may take these to the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs so that she may deal with her organisation accordingly should we be found lacking in the implementation of our mandate.“It is obvious that ARA is targeting what they consider to be the soft target in order to gain maximum exposure on matters that have nothing to do with SANParks but we will not allow ourselves to be used in the name of other entities which may be less visible than ourselves,” stated Dr Mabunda.In closing, Dr Mabunda said: “Let ARA and their associates play the politics of conservation and leave us to manage the national parks.”
______________________________________________________________
Issued by SANParks Corporate Communications on behalf of Dr David Mabunda, Chief Executive of South African National Parks_________________
Zakiya Fareed Media & Stakeholder Relations South African National Parks

Comment by Janine on the above press release

SANPark: “Dr Mabunda said that the decisions on off-take quotas of wildlife are scientifically determined, He added that the present removal rate has no detectable consequences on population growth, with the start of only 4 donated white rhinos in 1961 to the current population estimated at between 9000 and 12 000 white rhinos in the Kruger National Park. South Africa has the most viable and healthy rhino population in the world.”

Janine: Rhino figures taken directly from the Sanparks site Scientific section.
•White rhinoceros: 4 509
•Black rhinoceros: 350
Large discrepancy in numbers from what Mr Mabunda is giving us.

“There is nothing wrong with selling a number of rhinos to a single operator as long as the conditions of the operation and the land size are permitting.”

If so why did SANParks not inspect the property of Mr Hume which resulted in the death of ten of the rhino bought by him from you.

“We are not going to suspend the sale of excess rhino as long as national legislation and policies permit.”

What about the increase in poaching, that makes a huge dent in the so called excess rhino.

I don’t know readers, please give me your view of this press release from SANParks, I don’t think the explanation of moving so many rhino from Kruger has enough merit, especially due to the huge increase in poaching. Figures 56 in Kruger in 18 months and 77 in Zimbabwe, I think Southern African need to be cautious about how many rhino they hunt. In order that we do not go back to the days when rhino were highly in danger of becoming extinct. More thought needs to go into this matter.

Follow up article by Elise Tempelhoff in Die Beeld

2009-07-16T11:34:00.001+02:00

Beeld / South Africa
Elise Tempelhoff

Johannesburg - There are people "out there" who might think that conservation and black people are two mutually exclusive concepts, but Sanparks is currently considered a world leader in the area of biodiversity management and conservation.

This is what David Mabunda, chief executive of conservation at Sanparks, had to say on Tuesday in reaction to the controversy over the recent sale of 200 of the Kruger Park's white rhino to game farmers and breeders. Ten of these animals have since died.

On Monday, conservation organisations accused Sanparks of turning into a "kind of supermarket" that is only interested in profiting from the sale of white rhinos, an endangered species.

These organisations, which include Sanwild and Animal Rights Africa, have accused Sanparks amongst other things, of not taking the animals' welfare seriously after they're sold.

A responsibility

According to Sanwild's Louise Joubert, Sanparks had a duty and a responsibility to ensure that these animals - precisely because they were an endangered species - were properly transported to their new homes, and were not immediately hunted as "canned" rhinos.

Hector Magome, executive director of conservation services at Sanparks, said the game park did not have a legal duty to see to the welfare of the animals after they were sold.

"However, we do feel ethically responsible for these animals, and therefore we screen prospective buyers carefully. If a buyer has let us down once, we'll never sell rhinos to him again."

Mabunda said: "Before 1994 the park's management sold the animals indiscriminately and the auctions were never advertised. We wanted to take the democratic route and thus decided to place advertisements. Thus we are now the victims of our own democratic decision."

According to Mabunda, the park had a "healthy" rhinoceros population of between 9 000 and 12 000.

Sanparks would use the profits from the rhino sales to buy more land for conservation and to initiate special conservation projects.

Moving Kruger's borders so hunters can kill.

2009-07-13T21:23:00.001+02:00

‘Hard to Imagine this Utopia of cattle and wildlife intermingling can be proposed.’

By Mike Cadman (published in Sunday Independent 12.07.09)

South African National Parks (SANParks) is planning to move a 48km section o f the world renowned Kruger National Park’s western boundary fence to create a new 150km contracting park specifically to allow trophy hunting. The southern African director for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw) Jason Bell-Leask said the plan to create a new hunting area is an issue of “grave concern”.
“This cannot be disguised as anything but a green light for hunting in the KNP, which makes no ecological, biological, ethical or economic sense, “Bell-Leask said. “Kruger animals will be hunted if this deal in its current form proceeds”.
Legalised trophy hunting in provincial and private reserves that share unfenced boundaries with Kruger has intensified in the past year, with two new concessions being opened in the Makuya and Nthimkulu provincial parks in Limpopo.
The exclusive Associated Private nature Reserves (Timbavati, Klaserie Umbabat and Balule), which are part of the Greater Kruger National Park, were also in 2008/2009 granted their highest ever elephant and buffalo trophy quotas.
To create the new hunting area, which lies north of Phalaborwa between the Klein Letaba and Shingwidzi Rivers, SANParks, will have to move the existing boundary fence much of which was recently been upgraded at a cost of R270 000 a km, about 3km to the west.
A new fence, which must be able to contain elephant, is likely to cost considerably more to build than the existing fence.
The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries also warned last week that relocating the existing fence, for which it is responsible, would be very expensive and has serious veterinary disease implications for stock farmers in the region. The department said creating of the hunting area, which will be managed in conjunction with local communities is a contract park, will require moving all the 15 000 community owned cattle that currently live in the area.
It is also likely to increase conflict between predators and liver stock as the new fence will be erected close to the villages of Hlomela, Muyexe and Mahlati, which are 2-3km from the Kruger boundary.
Responding in writing to questions submitted by The Sunday Independent, Dr Hector Magome, managing executive of conservation services SANParks, said that permitting hunting in provincial private or contract parks that share unfenced boundaries with Kruger falls within the concept of sustainable use of natural resources and was permissible in terms of the Protected Areas Act and the Kruger management plan.
“This area has a low tourism or agricultural potential,” said “Sustainable use of resources is currently the best option as it benefits communities most and has the lowest impact on the environment. Although there is very little game in the area, he said “(wild) animals will re-colonise the area over time as their populations grow.”
Magome added that although veterinary laws prohibit cattle and wild animals, particularly buffalo, intermingling in the Greater Kruger, SANParks was contemplating allowing this in the proposed hunting area, which is currently used as a communal grazing area.

“We hope future laws will include the possibility to have both domestic and wild animals in the same area as in many other parts of Africa.” he said, adding that negotiations with local communities on this issue were still under way.
Leader of the UDM Bantu Holomisa said the concept of sustainable use of natural resources needed to be publicly debated.
“The whole issue of what is meant by sustainable use of resources in national parks needs to be unpacked and re-examined and SANParks need to explain this clearly to the parliamentary portfolio committee on environmental affairs and other stakeholders,” Holomisa said. “It is a pity that they seem to be advocating mowing down animals rather than conserving them.”
Ifaw’s Bell-Leask also called for the interpretation of sustainable use of natural resources to be debated.
“It seems to me that SANParks has decided that sustainable use means consumptive use , a very short-sighted view of the world indeed. SANParks can try and twist things this way and that to mislead the public but at the end of the day, the intent is clear – Kruger animals will be hunted if this deal, in its current form proceeds,” Bell-Leask said.
The Kruger National Park is increasingly becoming surrounded by hunting concessions that share a common boundary with the park, which in 2007 attracted 1.39 million tourists.
In addition to the hunting that takes place within South Africa, a new hunting concession offering elephant, buffalo and lion trophies has been opened in Mozambique on the south-eastern border of Kruger.
The chief communications officer at the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Pricilla Sehoole said last week that under current laws cattle in the proposed contract park would have to be removed if the existing fence was moved westward.
“Considering current levels of human-wildlife conflict next to Kruger Park, it is hard to imagine that this Utopia of cattle and wildlife intermingling can be proposed Sehoole said.
“Bringing the fences right next to the villages will in fact reduce the (disease) conflict buffer zone and increase conflict (between wildlife and communities).”

KNP sale of white rhino canned after 10 animals die

2009-07-13T20:08:00.002+02:00

Plan to capture and sell White Rhinos canned after 10 animals die.
Excerpt of Article By Eleanor Momberg in the Sunday Independent (12.07.09)

The operation to capture and sell between 200 and 350 rhinos from the Kruger National Park has been suspended.
This is because 10 of the 72 white rhinos recently captured and relocated to a game farm in the North West have died, and several have broken out.
“It was discovered that the property was also highly unsuitable for the rhinos.
Although it is a 4 000-hectare property, it has been subdivided into smaller units of 400ha each, and as SANParks (SA National Parks) we decided that the welfare of all the animals is our key concern and can’t be compromised,” said spokeswoman Wnad Mkutshulwa.
A total of 200 white rhinos had been sold on tender recently to John Hume, owner of the country’s largest private collection of rhinos.
Mkutshulwa said only 36 cows and their calves had been relocated from Kruger to Hume’s property, Langlaagte, near Klerksdrop, so far. But 10 of the animals had died. Confirmation of suspension of the translocations came as a rhino wreaked havoc on the N4 between Middelburg and eMalaheni (Witbank) on Friday afternoon after the truck transporting it from Kruger to it’s new home overturned……

Rhino to be sold by South African National Parks for Hunting

2009-07-08T15:47:00.008+02:00

The great Kruger rhino sale

by Mike Cadman

Animal activists slam plans,saying national park is being treated as a profit-making game farm

South African National Parks (SANParks) is planning to raise R35 - R50 million this year by selling an unprecedented number of white rhinos from the Kruger National Park (KNP) to hunters and private land owners.
SANParks confirmed this week that operations are underway to capture and sell between 200 and 350 white rhinos to raise money and that it is likely that many of these animals will be shot on hunting farms.
Animal Rights Africa’s Steve Smit condemned the sale and said it was an admission of a failed conservation policy.
“They have been doing this for years and are sending a message that the KNP is being treated as a profit making game farm that sells animals to hunters,” Smit said. “Conservation should be paid for from the national budget, and SANParks should not be turning wild animals into mere commodities to raise funds”.
Between 2002 and the end of 2008 SANParks sold 473 rhinos, some to hunting operators, for R73.19 million (An average of about R154 000).
Some provincial conservation bodies also sell white rhinos and Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (KZN Wildlife) raised R44.4 million from the sale of 261 rhinos between 2004 and August 2008. Some of these animals were also hunted. Other provincial conservation bodies also sell white rhinos to hunters.
According to the Department of Environmental Affairs rhino hunting figures for 2008 are not yet available but earlier this year the Department said 197 rhinos were hunted in 2007.
Hunting operators charge anything between US $50 000 - $100 000 for a trophy rhino.
In a written response to questions the Managing Executive: Conservation Services at SANParks Dr Hector Magome confirmed this week that the capture and sale was undertaken to “to raise funds for conservation projects” and not for ecological reasons.
“The plan is to sell between 200 and 350 white rhinos, but we may end up selling just over 200 white rhinos” Magome said. “The money is only spent after applications for conservation projects are submitted to a special committee.”
Most of the animals are being captured in southern KNP where there is a high density of white rhinos. In its 2007/2008 Annual Report SANParks estimated that the white population in the KNP was about 7 000.
A game ranger, who asked not to be named for in this article because he feared disciplinary action, said it was unclear if any studies had been undertaken to determine the impact the capture operation would have on the social structure of rhino populations in the area.
“None of the guys I have spoken to are aware of any research that has been done to show the ecological impacts the take off will have - our understanding is that all the guys at the top want is to capture as many rhinos as quickly and cheaply as possible so they can raise funds,” he said. “Some of the guys who interact with the public feel they have to lie to tourists when they ask what is happening to the rhinos because in some areas they are struggling to find any. No one wants to tell a tourist that Kruger rhinos they have come to see are being being captured and may end up getting shot by some hunter on a game farm.”
The Democratic Alliances Gareth Morgan also expressed concern.
“These animals are held in trust by SANParks on behalf of the nation and I am very uncomfortable with the fact that some are to be hunted and will ask questions about this in Parliament next week,” Morgan, who is the DA’s spokesperson on environmental issues, said. “I have no problem if they feel that to ease population pressure, or for some other ecological reason, they capture some animals and sell them to nature reserves, transfrontier parks or other protected areas.”
South Africa’s rhino population is coming under increasing pressure from illegal hunting and poaching. Last year conservation authorities revealed a rhino horn smuggling scam in which hunting permits were used to launder illegally obtained horns as legal hunting trophies. The scam circumvented CITES (Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna) regulations that would have otherwise prevented the export of the horns.
Those involved in the scam included hunters and game farmers who bought rhinos on game auctions, ostensibly for legal trophy hunting, but instead shot the animals and sold the horns to dealers in the Far East for use in the traditional medicine trade.
It has not been made public how many horns were sold in the scam but the situation was sufficiently serious for the Minister of Environmental Affairs to publish new regulations in February this year aimed at trying to curtail the trade.
In April the Eastern Cape Parks Board sparked controversy when it authorised the hunting of six white rhino in the Dwesa Nature Reserve although a spokesperson said at the time a similar amount of money would have been raised had the animals been captured and sold live.
There has also been a dramatic rise in poaching incidents in the last 18 months. According to DEAT 74 rhinos were poached in South Africa last year, 36 in the KNP alone. This is the highest figure in record.
SANParks said this week that 21 white rhino and one black rhino had been killed by poachers in the KNP this year – bringing the figure for the park in the last 18 months to 58 – (56 white rhino and two black).
About 77 rhinos were killed by poachers in Zimbabwe last year.

Article by Mike Cadman

Sunday Indipendent July 5 2009

More good news - Well done all involved.

2009-06-26T09:58:00.003+02:00

Chains coming off !! Photos from ZIMBABWE of the chains being cut off and the group all standing together. Still huge fights to keep elephant out of chains and training - negotiations on land and move still on the go. Will let you know Keep fingers crossed Karen T ZNSPCA PRESS STATEMENT ON WILD CAPTURED ELEPHANTS HELD CAPTIVE AT SONDELANI RANCH ZNSPCA are pleased to inform the international community that the ten wild elephants captured by Basil Steyn for commercial purposes are scheduled for release. ZNSPCA would like to thank the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Honourable Minister Nhema, the Attorney General's offices, officials from the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority for their integral role in the release of these abused elephants. We are proud of our Ministry's recognition of animal cruelty and the prevention of such acts. Furthermore, ZNSPCA extends its gratitude to elephant specialists Karen Trendler and Dr. Lucy Bates whose reports clearly indicated that these elephants had been subjected to cruelty. We acknowledge the role of Dr. A. Dube (BVSc Zim) who carried out the veterinary inspection of the elephants. These specialists' opinions, and the ZNSPCA Inspectorate reports have paved the way for a brighter future for these elephants. This cruel capture resulted in ZNSPCA having numerous meetings with National Parks and it has been agreed that Parks will organise workshops with relevant stakeholders in order to address loopholes and prevent such incidents re-occurring in the Country. Controls and codes of conduct for the management of the remaining wild elephants in captivity will also be put in place. ZNSPCA commends National Parks on this positive move. These ten elephants will require rehabilitation before they are released. Following advice on ownership issues from legal experts, the elephants will be released from the boma into Sondelani Ranch estate. ZNSPCA Inspectorate will be approaching relevant experts to assist with the rehabilitation of the ten elephants. ZNSPCA requires that all ten elephants be micro chipped before they are released in order to protect them in the future, that they may be traced any time. The public will be kept appraised of our progress. Assistance was given by numerous other individuals throughout this challenging journey that the ZNSPCA had to take on behalf of these elephants, and we thank them all. Glynis Vaughan Chief Inspector ZNSPCA 156 Enterprise Road , Chisipite, Harare, Zimbabwe P O Box CH55 , Chisipite, Harare, Zimbabwe

2009-06-15T09:32:00.007+02:00

Comment on the article below by Janine Scorer

“There are between 3 500 and 4 000 lions in captivity in South Africa, most of which are bred specifically for the hunting industry.”
My understanding is that the reason for such a large number is that DEAT have been dragging their heels on this issue for years now and if we allow this to continue it will only become worse.

"It also has dire consequences for about 5 000 workers and their dependents who could lose their jobs if lion breeding facilities close down.”
I also find it very interesting as soon as some one here in SA wants to get their own way they start to quote what is in my opinion pumped up job loss figures.

"And now they want to destroy it, so they must tell us what they plan to do with all these animals that no one will want because they have no economic value."
The sad fact is in my opinion, that the best thing for the Lion population on the whole in South Africa is that these lions need to be euthanized. As stated re introducing them into the wild is not an option, no one can afford to feed them, their quality of life is not a real quality of life the way a lion should live.
If we do not euthanize these lions this problem will just be compounded, and the numbers of captive lions will increase. Never mind where would you find the funding to feed and house these animals until they die a natural death in about 8 to 10 years. This is tragic, if the Department of Environment had move years sooner the lion population in South Africa would not be in this situation. Quality of life for animals is the most important factor. The other thing we must remember is that ultimately these lions would have been shot for money under the most appalling circumstances. As conservationists, in this case we have to be cruel to be kind.

If you wish to comment below please do.

New post Monday 15 June 2009

Future looks no better for SA's canned lions

June 14 2009 Published in the Sunday Independent.

By Mike Cadman

The government has won the court case that will effectively put a stop to canned lion hunting - but it now faces a massive animal welfare crisis as breeders threaten to ditch unwanted predators that no longer have any commercial value. There are between 3 500 and 4 000 lions in captivity in South Africa, most of which are bred specifically for the hunting industry. The South African Predator Breeders Association (Sapba) estimates that 1 050 lions - the highest figure on record - were hunted in South Africa last year. About 700 lions were shot in 2007 and 322 in 2006.

On Thursday, the Bloemfontein High Court ruled that the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs had a right to enforce laws that stipulated that lions raised in captivity must be allowed to roam free for two years before being hunted.Sapba argued that this provision would make the breeding of lions in captivity for hunting financially unviable even though the industry is legal. The association also argued that the former department of environmental affairs and tourism had acted unfairly in drawing up the legislation. Sapba chairperson Carel van Heerden said on Friday that his organisation, which has 123 members, was considering appealing against the ruling. The members would meet next Friday to consider their options, he said."This is a crucial time for them. The decision could mean the end of their businesses, which had been legalised by the state," Van Heerden said. "It also has dire consequences for about 5 000 workers and their dependents who could lose their jobs if lion breeding facilities close down."People have poured millions of rands into their facilities and it costs a lot of money to feed lions and raise them. "The government allowed the industry to become established over a period of many years; they legalised it by issuing permits," he said. "And now they want to destroy it, so they must tell us what they plan to do with all these animals that no one will want because they have no economic value."For the past few years, conservation, animal welfare and animal rights groups have urged the government to draw up plans to deal with the animal welfare issues should the canned lion hunting industry be shut down."A victory may have been won in court, but to these animals, whose lives so far have been nothing more than a caged existence to provide a trophy to an unethical hunter, their future remains uncertain and may not necessarily be any better," said Yolan Friedmann, CEO of the Endangered Wildlife Trust in Joburg. "We urge the government to immediately begin a process of addressing this situation, to avert a welfare crisis in which these animals could fall prey to neglect and further cruel treatment," she added.The government has no suitable sanctuaries for unwanted lions raised in captivity, and private operations can't handle such large numbers of lions.Wildlife rehabilitation experts said releasing lions back into the wild was extremely difficult and time-consuming, and that most large wildlife areas in the country had reached their carrying capacity for lions and other predators.Brenda Santon, the manager of the wildlife unit at the NSPCA, said that law enforcement and monitoring of the industry had been notoriously poor for years."Immediate action is needed to deal with this welfare crisis and there is an urgent need to properly monitor how the animals are now treated," she said. A report published recently by the NSPCA shows that most captive lion breeding facilities are in North West and the Free State. There are some facilities in Gauteng, the Eastern Cape and Limpopo, but more than 90 percent of all lion hunting takes place in North West.The Department of Water and Environmental Affairs said last week it was still awaiting a report on the captive lion breeding and hunting industry, but it planned to include lions in the Threatened or Protect Species (Tops) regulations as soon as possible.Asked what plans were in place to deal with unwanted lions, the department's spokesperson Albi Modise said it "will co-operate with all stakeholders and investigate all available options to address the issue should it arise". Canned lion hunting in South Africa made headlines in 1997 when a British documentary showed lions being hunted behind fences.The documentary sparked an outcry, and three successive environment ministers repeatedly vowed to investigate the industry, enforce strict controls and outlaw canned hunting. In February last year Marthinus van Schalkwyk, then the minister of environmental affairs and tourism, said new legislation ensured that "the days of captive breeding of listed species for any purpose except science and conservation are over" - but he later removed lions from the Tops regulations because of the Sapba court challenge

2009-06-12T16:45:00.005+02:00

From News 24.Com

http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/e13507cadb4242918ef5352d8b45ccfe/12-06-2009 09-06/End_of_road_for_canned_hunting

2009-06-12 09:29

End of road for canned hunting

Elise Tempelhoff -Vanderbijlpark

It is the end of the road for South Africa’s 123 lion breeders and 3 000 canned lions.This follows a verdict in the Free State High Court in Bloemfontein on Thursday that these semi-tame animals may only be hunted 24 months after being set free from their breeding cages.Judge Ian van der Merwe concurred with the government that biodiversity must be protected, and that the breeding of lions in captivity with the sole purpose of canned hunting, did not aid their protection.The lion breeders’ request that the period of 24 months in the regulations be changed to “a few days”, was dismissed with costs.Verdict welcomedAlbi Modise, spokesperson for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, said the government welcomes the verdict.“This means that the reprehensible practice of canned hunting has most certainly come to an end.”Carel van Heerden, chairperson of the South African Predator Breeders Association, which took the government to court, said it was a tragic verdict.“It feels like someone has kicked me in the stomach.“The practical implications of the verdict are devastating to our industry and to all the people involved in the industry. It means that 5 000 breadwinners will soon lose their jobs, and about 3 000 (semi-tame) lions will have to be put down.”The financial implications on members of the association, and the damage it will cause to the hunting and tourism industry in South Africa is incalculable, said Van Heerden.“We operate a perfectly legal business and will continue to seek justice.”According to Van Heerden, the association’s legal team will now study the verdict in its entirety, and then possibly apply for leave to appeal the verdict.Apparently, some of the farmers on Thursday threatened to sue the government due to the loss of income they will suffer due to the legislation.Multi-million rand industryVan der Merwe said in his verdict that lion farmers, who are currently keeping a multi-million rand industry afloat, are just worried about money and the economic losses they will suffer if the semi-tame lions must first spend two years roaming free in nature before they can be hunted.Marthinus van Schalkwyk, former minister of environmental affairs and tourism, was taken to court by lion breeders about two years ago, when he apparently wanted to “crush” their industry with regulations regarding threatened and protected species.According to the regulations, a lion which has been bred in captivity, must be self-sustaining for 24 months (in other words, hunt for prey), before it can be hunted.The lion breeders said in court papers that it would mean their downfall if the animals had to remain free for that long. They called the decision irrational.Furthermore, Modise said that while hunting makes a substantial and positive contribution to conservation management and the country’s economy, the government also needs to protect a valuable resource and ensure that the industry has a sustainable future. “We need a clean hunting industry, free from unacceptable behaviour which could damage the country’s image.”

2009-06-05T13:19:00.004+02:00

Hunting in SA Posted here 05.06.09

Here is the letter by David Mabunda SA Parks Hunting can help protect wildlife (South Africa)David Mabunda, Sunday IndependentMay 17, 2009

The business of conservation is one that lends itself to a number of contestations every now and then as everyone sees their important role in protecting or owning mother nature.

As a business and a science it is still very young, in most countries no older than a 100 years or so. Because of this relative newness of this area you find that there are any number of stakeholders who have diverse and differing views on how business should be conducted by conservation authorities in order to ensure continued income.

The recently revived debate on hunting on the borders of the Kruger National Park, our national and international icon, is one that is also squarely based in this public discourse of who has the environment's best interests at heart.

Unfortunately nobody ever wins this debate because it often degenerates into emotional and unconstructive speculations.

Hunting in South Africa is a sport that is legal and regulated by law. The legislation that regulates the establishment and management of protected areas makes specific provisions for sustainable resource use, which includes hunting.The National Environmental Management Act: Protected Areas Amendment Act 31 of 2004, clause 50 (1) allows the management authority of a national park to enter into a written agreement with a community resident inside or adjacent to the park to allow members of the community to use in a sustainable manner the biological resources in the park.

This is aimed at promoting sustainable utilisation of protected areas for the benefit of people, in a manner that would preserve the ecological character of such areas. The NEMA: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 also makes provision for the use of biological resources in a sustainable manner. Hunting is also recognised by the IUCN (World Conservation Union) as a sustainable form of use of natural resources which is able to generate a high level of income.It is practised in many parts of the world around national parks which act as the source for natural resources, much in the same way that sustainable fishing around marine protected areas can occur in perpetuity if those areas are properly protected and fishing is controlled professionally and scientifically.South African National Parks (SANParks) is not opposed to hunting in buffer areas as long as it is done transparently and according to the management plans and protocols that have been agreed to between the adjoining land owners and SANParks.

It is important to note that there is a marked difference between protected areas and game reserves - most of which are privately owned - as well as between different types of protected areas. Simply put, a protected area is a recognised geographical area that will be protected by whatever means for its ecological, historic or cultural value over a long period of time and may also include a tourism element. Within the suite of protected areas there are various levels of protection accorded to a range of parks, varying from national parks, to provincial reserves and right at the bottom protected environments. Game reserves are specifically designed for tourism and as such, may include activities such as hunting of the wildlife kept in the areas. Because of the high status of protection accorded to national parks extractive forms of resource-use, such as hunting and mining, are not permitted within the boundaries of the national park. In this context it should be understood then that land on the buffer zones of national parks, though legally contracted to or entered into formal agreement for the dropping of fences, is not national park land. The hunting occurring on the borders of Kruger National Park is actually taking place in the buffer zones - private land which is largely managed by the provinces, communities or private individuals.

Because hunting is regulated in SA one needs to have a specific hunting permit in order to practice such. Applications for hunting permits are evaluated and issued by the respective provinces. SANParks does not have the mandate or the jurisdiction to regulate hunting in any area, be it private land or provincial managed land.
The former Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, started a process which sought to further regulate the hunting of wildlife. At present the current draft Norms and Standards for Hunting Nationally have been developed, which would put a stop to undesirable forms of hunting such as canned hunting.
Although hunting is not one of the activities on offer to visitors to national parks (and we do not envisage that it will become one any time in the future) we support the game farming and hunting industry as a form of land use that is sympathetic to biodiversity conservation.

The fact that land holders in buffer zones to national parks may derive income from sustainable hunting, is one of a range of incentives for them to keep the land in a state that is compatible with the maintenance of wildlife.

In the case of contractual national parks, we accept that our contractual partners may derive income from sustainable use of wildlife, including hunting, if they so wish. It is important to further note that of South Africa's 122 million ha, only 7.5 million ha consists of state protected areas with 17 million ha of protected land in private hands. In its bid to increase land under protection from the current six percent to 10 percent by 2012, the government may rely a lot on the contributions of the private sector. One must realise that the private sector relies a lot on the optimal, though sustainable, use of the land under its management. In a number of these private establishments trophy hunting brings in a substantial amount of revenue which is put back into managing the area to make the industry self-sustainable. Some revenue is also allocated towards community outreach programmes. For example, the Professional Hunters' Association of South Africa (Phasa) has established a Wildlife Conservation Fund that, according to them, seeks to sustain the hunting industry and to assist with the regulation of professional hunting. The funds are also used to finance accredited research projects, and most private game reserves supporting hunting are committed to establishing proper wildlife management techniques in order to maintain the area's ecological balance and therefore to sustain their own industry at the same time. As to the wild claims that the animals being hunted in these buffer areas are those belonging to national parks, wildlife is declared res nullius (nobody's property) and as such, one cannot speculate on this matter. Animals are territorial by nature and are not prone to wander unless under extreme circumstances. The likelihood of these being national parks animals is minimal. Most of the animals in the private reserves were part of these reserves before the fences were removed. The only effect of removing the fences was to create more land for the animals. With all of this in mind, it should be noted, however, that all hunting within the boundaries of national parks where fences have been dropped is done only under agreed conditions. Hunting off-takes usually come to less than one percent of annual population reproduction. This is not nearly enough to create a vacuum that would draw game from the national parks. Due to the extensive boundary of the Kruger National Park and the myriad of streams of all sizes that it has to cross, it is virtually impossible to keep all animals in the park all the time. As long as the sanctity of national parks is maintained according to the laws of the country, SANParks cannot dictate or control the activities of its neighbours. Although unpalatable to some, it is prudent to note that regulated trophy hunting is the one avenue through which wildlife can create substantial revenue for the sustainable management of some small protected areas and environments as well as the upliftment of adjacent communities.
David Mabunda is the chief executive officer of South African National Parks.

Responses to the above and other practices:-.

As run in the Sunday Independent on 11 May 2009.
TROPHY hunters are killing the animals that attract the more than 1.39 million South African and international tourists to the Kruger National Park each year.

Hunting quotas in provincial and private reserves that share unfenced boundaries with South Africa’s premier national park have reached an all-time high, and two new big game trophy-hunting concessions have been awarded in Limpopo in the past nine months.
A new hunting concession offering elephant, buffalo and lion trophies has also been awarded in Mozambique on the eastern border of Kruger. Proposed quotas for 2008/2009 allowed for at least 70 elephants, 174 buffaloes, seven white rhinos, two lions and several other species to be hunted in provincial and private reserves that share unfenced boundaries with Kruger.

Animals move freely between Kruger and the Makuya and Mthimkulu provincial reserves, both of which have been opened to hunting recently, as well as the exclusive Associated Private Nature Reserves (Timbavati, Klaserie, Umbabat and Balule), where hunting has been allowed since the 1990s. Trophy hunting is illegal in South Africa’s national parks.
The 16 000ha Makuya Nature Reserve borders Kruger south of Pafuri Gate and the Mthimkulu Nature Reserve borders the park north of Phalaborwa. Both reserves were the subject of land claims and are run by the Limpopo provincial government in conjunction with local communities. Wanda Mkutshulwa, the head of corporate communications for South African National Parks, said in a written response to questions from The Sunday Independent that the Associated Private Nature Reserves had a proposed “hunting offtake” for this year that included 55 elephants, 144 buffaloes, seven white rhinos, two lions, 5 003 impalas, three hippos, one leopard, seven zebras and six warthogs.
Last year, Makuya Nature Reserve had a quota of five elephants and 10 buffaloes, and Mthimkulu had a quota of 10 elephants, 20 buffaloes and six hippos. Nyala, waterbuck and kudu are hunted in Makuya and Mthimkulu. Mkutshulwa said the Protected Areas Act recognised that hunting was an acceptable form of sustainable use of natural resources.
Asked if hunters were using Kruger as a source of hunting stock, Mkutshulwa said: “It would be unprofessional of me to speculate on such an issue.” Staff at Mthimkulu and Makuya confirmed that animals, particularly elephants and buffaloes, regularly moved in and out of Kruger. “There is nothing to stop them, just the river (the Luvuvhu River),” said an employee at Makuya Nature Reserve. “The river is shallow most of the time, so the animals cross whenever they want.” Advertising “Huge Buffalo and Elephant – New Area Opened in 2008”, a company called Global Hunting Resources, based in the US, said on its website that the Mthimkulu Nature Reserve lay “between the confluences of the Big and Little (Groot and Klein) Letaba rivers. The hunting area is roughly 22 000 acres, and is now part of the Greater Kruger Park! All game flows freely between the park and the hunting area without the obstruction of the FENCE.”
The first buffalo hunt in Mthimkulu took place in September and the first elephant hunt in Makuya in October. Most of the hunters who have visited these reserves are foreigners. “This is a disgrace,” said Steve Smit of Animal Rights Africa. “The government is dishonestly bypassing its own legislation to promote the hunting of animals from Kruger… The government has made no scientific evidence available to support (its) decision to allow this and (its) actions raise questions about (its) commitment to the responsible care of our national heritage.” Mkutshulwa said Kruger had formal written agreements with the Associated Private Nature Reserves, but agreements with the two provincial reserves were “still in the pipeline”.
Trophy hunting is a subject of heated debate among property owners and staff in the Associated Private Nature Reserves. Some promote the idea as a means of raising revenue, but others are opposed to it. The issue also worries staff at the provincial reserves. “I am not in favour of hunting, because we are trying run a tourism operation here,” one employee at Makuya said. “It is a difficult thing to tell tourists that hunters are killing animals here.” A spokesman for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism said he was not aware of the number of hunting permits issued for reserves bordering Kruger. He also didn’t know if trophy hunting was to be allowed in other provincial reserves, because “hunting in buffer zones (is) regulated by provincial (legislation)”.
Mike Cadman

Please note that the below opinion piece is in reference to and follows David Mabunda's letter entitled "Hunting can help protect wildlife," also published in the Sunday Independent and sent around on this listserv on May 18. It is a continuation of the sport hunting debate

SANParks is hiding behind indefensible excuses (South Africa)
Michele Pickover and Steve Smit,
The Sunday Independent May 31, 2009

It appears that Dr David Mabunda, the CEO of South African National Parks (SANParks), has become an apologist and spokesman for the hunting industry (Hunting can help protect wildlife, The Sunday Independent, May 17).The internet is littered with boasts of mainly white men from Europe and the US who seem to get a perverse thrill from killing "Kruger animals", from what they often offensively refer to as the "Dark Continent", and sticking them on their walls as symbols of domination and prowess.The alarming thing is that SANParks seems to think that this is okay - and appears to be promoting it.Let's get this straight: trophy hunting is not conservation, it is not an ecological act, and killing for fun is not a human right. Trophy hunting has no place in the modern world and is not morally defensible in the 21st century. It is a cruel, abusive, exploitative and learned activity, where the animal hunted is an involuntary conscript and the animal's subjective experience is ignored. Trophy hunting is nothing more than a deliberate, violent form of so-called "recreation" that turns complex and sentient beings into mere commodities.In South Africa it is a practice that is becoming endemic. It also extremely difficult to monitor or police, and is fast becoming a front for poaching and illegal activities, as the current war on rhinos has shown. Mabunda's article also gives the false impression that that the industry is under control - that canned hunting is outlawed. This is a perversion of the truth. The reality is that most trophy and sport hunting in South Africa is canned to a greater or lesser extent and the industry is growing. By its own admission, SANParks does not have the resources to properly police the areas under its control.We must stop thinking of wild animals as "resources" and "game" and see them as sentient beings that deserve our wonder and respect. It is time to stop allowing hunting to be creditable by calling it "sport" and "recreation". As for hunters, it's long past check-out time. Wild animals in and from protected areas in South Africa are not simply government property or a "natural resource" to do with as bureaucrats please. They are sentient creatures deserving of care and respect. That wild animals have intrinsic value is already recognised in several national wildlife policy documents and international conservation agreements.SANParks is intent on selling off and killing our heritage, along with our reputation. This poses a direct threat to ecotourism and community livelihoods. Hunters shoot an animal once, but tourists with cameras can harmlessly shoot it a thousand times. Instead of promoting hunting as a preferred activity, SANParks should be empowering communities through non-consumptive, non-violent tourism.Wildlife in protected areas should be held in trusteeship on behalf of the people of South Africa, and private individuals should not be able to hunt such wildlife for profit in adjacent private or communal land. South Africans need to seriously question the current drive by the government - with strong support from the trophy industry - to push trophy hunting as an acceptable practice.Hunting in national and provincial parks or in conveniently called "buffer zones" - where fences have been deliberately removed by SANParks - is at odds with our responsibility to protect our national heritage and safeguard the interests of the individual animals. It is alarming that SANParks has moved away from a prudent, precautionary approach to a situation where our natural heritage has to "pay its own way" and it is pushing the agenda of the powerful commercial hunting industry that drives the notion of "use it or lose it".SANParks is hiding behind green-sounding names such as "sustainable use", which is an anathema conjured by the so-called "wise use" movement to mask killing animals merely for fun - it is an alibi for profit-making and gratuitous violence against wild animals.SANParks should be at the forefront of having the problematic, outdated and contested notion of wild animals being res nullius (that they are ownerless and can be freely exploited) legally replaced with the concept of wild animals as res publica (in public ownership).Instead, Mabunda is using it to renege on SANParks's mandate, thereby allowing rich people in areas adjacent to national parks like Kruger (such as the Association of Private Nature Reserves and privately owned lodges on the Mozambique side of Kruger) to pay for their levies through the trophy hunting of what clearly includes Kruger animals.Removal of fences between national parks and private or communal land does not mean that the state has "lost" ownership or that the wild animals are now "ownerless".Res nullius has no place in South Africa - it was first proposed as a political justification for white ownership of land in the Cape in the 1830s and is closely linked to colonial and imperial notions of possession and ownership. It is in conflict with the constitution.The fate of humans and other animals is inextricably linked, and to meet the growing threats to our shared world and the massive extinction of species, only a sweeping restructuring of the way we see ourselves and our role in the natural world can help turn this backlash around.l Michele Pickover and Steve Smit are members of Animal Rights Africa.

This link will take you to the legislation document :-

http://www.deat.gov.za/PolLeg/Legislation/2005Jan28_1/LP_Notice_n&s_regs(24-01-05).doc